Part 3 - Possible Turnaround
By Gordon Penner, FAA Gold Seal Instructor, 3-time MCFI-Aerobatic, FAASTeam Representative, B767 Capt., SAFE Bronze Member
A test pilot mate of mine once told me, "The difference between the true professional and other pilots is that during takeoff many amateurs are surprised when something doesn't work; the pro is equally surprised when it does" Old FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8740-44 AFO-800-1283
Overview
Welcome to Part 3 of Decision Making and LOC-I. In discussing LOC-I (Loss of Control-Inflight) accidents it is time to talk about the “Impossible Turn.” That is the term normally applied to attempts at turning back to the runway after an engine failure on climb out.
It is not “impossible” because I have done it, and so has aviation author Barry Schiff, but we were both high enough and over a long enough runway. We both planned for it before the throttle was pushed up for takeoff. We both trained for it. Glider experience helped. We also used 45 degrees of bank, which is optimum. Most of all, we stayed coordinated.
Sadly, if the turnaround is not done correctly, or from a high enough altitude, it usually ends in a fatal stall/spin accident. That is a real harsh “Pass/Fail” situation. This maneuver brings up 3 questions:
- Could you perform a turnaround successfully?
- How do you perform a turnaround successfully?
- Should you attempt a turnaround, and when should you NOT?
We will deal with all 3 questions under the following sub-headings:
A) The ‘Hard’ Part - Ground Contact,
B) Designed to Crash? How to Crash Well?
C) One Way to Find a Safe Return Altitude,
D) The Lifesaving ‘Push’
E) Techniques and Details
F) Close Enough As Well As High Enough?
G) Wind on Takeoff
H) Conclusion
The first fallacy out there is that this maneuver is a “180 degree turn back to the runway.” Notice below, from Rich Stowell’s ‘Emergency Maneuver Training’ (EMT) manual, that the turn back actually requires closer to 270 degrees of total heading changes. I added the fat black arrow, signifying the 180 degree heading change, and the red boxes. When you turn only 180 degrees the runway is not directly in front of you.
This article includes information from FAA and industry sources, and from Rich Stowell’s EMT manual and his book “The Light Airplane Pilot’s Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness.” This article also includes information from the great series of articles in 2020 in EAA’s ‘Sport Aviation’ magazine about the turn back by Astronaut, Test Pilot, and columnist Charlie Precourt
Crashing ahead is more survivable than you would think, and actually has a much higher survivability record than trying to turn back. Crashing ahead not only requires less skill, the airplane is actually built for it. We, the training industry, need to be more convincing about that.
Crashing ahead is a hard mental place for most pilots to get to, though. Modern engines are so reliable. Plus, most pilots are either flying a rental, or they are flying their own hand-built, five-years-in-the-making, aircraft. The drive to save the airplane is HUGE! The drive NOT to crash, instead of to ‘crash well,’ is HUGE! That is hard to overcome.
Overall, you must develop a “steely-eyed and harsh” attitude about your takeoffs. You must decide, even before the throttle is pushed up, that if anything happens to your power on takeoff that you will sacrifice the aircraft to save the occupants. If you try to save the aircraft you will save neither the aircraft nor the occupants.
In the end, flying this maneuver correctly is important, but if you are not high enough and close enough to complete it, how well you do the maneuver may not matter.
That is where decision making comes in.
A) The ‘Hard’ Part - Ground Contact
You must not only be high enough to perform the turnaround, you must be close enough to the airport. The turn back to the runway after engine failure is high on the causal list for fatal LOC-I, or Loss of Control-Inflight, accidents. Studies have shown that four things are clear:
First, the B.W. Jett Turnaround study, conducted in a simulator and covered by Emergency Maneuver Training (EMT) guru Rich Stowell in his book “The Light Airplane Pilot’s Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness,” showed that:
“a. The oft-given advice to land straight ahead (or nearly so) appears to be solid - test subjects consistently were able to arrive back on the ground within the limits of survivability.” (More on crash survivability later.)
“b. Advice given during flight training about how to turn back is largely inadequate and has a high probability of failing.”
Second, the Turnaround study also showed that the turnaround maneuver can usually be safely flown by an average pilot if they have had scenario-based training specific to this situation. In FAA Advisory Circular, 61-83J, Appendix A11.4, talks about having instructors teach the turnaround, and to cover when it should and should not be employed.
Again, if done wrong it usually ends up in a fatal stall/spin. This is usually due to the pilot “ruddering” the nose around while trying to complete the turn, which is a spin entry. Pilots also stall the aircraft in this turn. When they see they are not going to make it back to the runway they try to “hold the airplane up,” instead of maintaining airspeed. Low airspeed with a skidded turn – we know how that story will end.
Third, the pilot must think about conditions that are present for that particular takeoff and come up with a decision point or altitude for the turn back before the throttle is pushed up. They must then commit themselves to not even attempt the turn back unless the decision point has been reached.
It is better to do the plotting and scheming needed to determine the decision point even before arriving at the airplane. Internet satellite imagery can now be used to look at the land area around an airport to determine the best place to put the airplane down in case of low altitude engine failure. Here you would be employing the military’s 6 P’s: “Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.”
To that end, pilots should be spanked for doing intersection takeoffs except for longer runways. Try to be as high as you can be by the end of the takeoff runway. Plus, runway ahead of you during a low altitude engine failure would be wonderful.
Fourth, you must learn how much altitude you really need to complete the FULL turnaround, meaning 270-ish degrees, by practicing it enough times in your own airplane, or that which you rent regularly, at a safe altitude, with your normal technique.
Landing straight ahead, or nearly so, statistically has an eight times higher success rate than the turn around. While many suspect that the statistics on this are not as complete as they could be, Rich Stowell thinks they are still pretty representative of the truth.
B) Designed to Crash? How to Crash Well?
Why does landing straight ahead have a high survivability record and turning back have such a horrible one? It’s all about the ground contact.
But, really, think about it. How much sense does it make to the average pilot to suggest thinking about how to ‘successfully’ crash?
Rich Stowell’s EMT manual describes the crashworthiness of our light airplanes: “…with seats and restraint systems properly adjusted, occupants must be protected to at least the following static loads: 9.0 g’s in the forward direction, 3.0 g’s upward (4.5 g’s in the Acrobatic category), and 1.5 g’s sideways. Dynamic load test criteria include a 26 g’s deceleration in 0.05 seconds or less without seat or restraint system failures. Emergency landing survivability, therefore, can be improved simply by taking advantage of the crashworthiness designed into your airplane.”
The aircraft can go from 50-60 knots to 0, take the above levels of force, and only use about 20 feet. You won’t like it, but it is survivable.
The most important point about ground contact is to touch down wings level, at a shallow angle, and as slow as possible. Into the wind would be even better. If pilots start a spin entry due to “ruddering the nose around” they will touch down wingtip first, which will set up a cartwheel. That is not survivable. Again, from Rich Stowell, “…The real issue is the pilot’s ability to control the impact angle and impact speed – those parameters, and those alone determine the outcome. Terrain has nothing to do with survivability.”
Test pilot and airshow great Bob Hoover had a saying; “Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can.” He knows, because it happened to him. Also, the incident below was not his first.
In 1989 Bob Hoover lost power on both engines at 3-400 feet above the ground in rough terrain flying his Shrike Commander outside of San Diego. His piston-powered airplane had been mis-fueled with jet fuel instead of avgas. He had two passengers on board.
Hoover maintained his airspeed, touched down wings level, and crashed up the side of a hill in a ravine. All aboard were uninjured.
Yes, he is THE Bob Hoover, but you know he pre-planned what he would do in this situation. I again refer you to the 6 P’s.
C) One Way to Find a Safe Return Altitude
Author and pilot Barry Schiff covered what happened to him with his turnaround in “Technique: Unconventional Wisdom: The Options After an Engine Failure.” You will find it at AOPA.org. The bank angles and techniques in Barry’s article are what I recommend for the turnaround maneuver, if it is to be accomplished.
He covers a way to determine the minimum safe altitude for a turnaround, which we are using here.
The decision to turn back, however, must not be made lightly. I agree with Schiff when he says “…Does this discussion imply that I recommend turning back toward the runway following an engine failure after takeoff? No, it does not. The decision to return to the airport rests solely with the pilot in command. Furthermore, it should never be considered unless the risk associated with landing ahead or to the side poses greater risk than turning around. Unfortunately, there are many airports where a straight-ahead landing would be disastrous.” Look at the terrain around the airport before you fly and have a plan.
If engine failure occurs below the turnaround altitude, derived by the method below, you must determine what area off-airport would be the best choice for a survivable landing. Your choice needs to be as close to straight ahead as possible.
Also on AOPA.org is the article “Impossible Turn – Practice Makes Possible”. In it the writer goes out with their instructor and actually practices the maneuver as outlined by Mr. Schiff. Once a safe practice altitude was reached (About 3000 AGL or above) these were the steps followed:
- Set up on a cardinal heading.
- Climb halfway between Vx and Vy.
- Pull the throttle to idle at a pre-established altitude.
- Hold the same climb pitch for five seconds.
- Roll into a 45-degree bank turn.
- Pitch for best glide speed. (Do steps 5 and 6 together)
- Turn 270 degrees into the wind. (Practice right and left turns)
- Roll wings level.
- Simulate a flare to stop the sink rate.
- Note altitude lost.
- Add 50 percent of the altitude lost for a safe cushion
DO NOT fudge on adding the 50% from step 11. Rich Stowell has commented that adding a ‘cushion’ margin will “…account for the things that cannot be simulated at altitude, i.e., loss of fine motor skill due to stress/adrenalin, loss of proficiency, screaming passengers, oil on the windscreen, whatever.”
The 5 seconds is to account for reaction time and disbelief. Don’t fudge this either! It has been proven to be realistic. 4-5 seconds reaction time is in the FAA handbooks
D) The Lifesaving ‘Push’
The ‘Push’ at engine failure is essential, whether landing ahead or beginning a turnaround. In the airplane world we do not practice this enough or, in some cases, at all.
After engine failure you must get the nose down very positively/assertively because your airspeed will be slow and you will need to recapture Best Glide speed, or Vbg, quickly. Push until you are light in the seat. See the figure from Stowell’s EMT manual below. The red texts are mine.
In practice, find the pitch attitude for Vbg and practice the push from Vx or Vy down to Vbg. Memorize this nose down attitude. The airspeed needle will lag. Don’t depend on it. Most pilots will be surprised at how much pitch change is required from the nose up climb attitude to an attitude nose low enough to recapture and maintain Vbg.
Julie Boatman’s articles on the ‘Push’ at AOPA cover this well. (place link here). The military calls this ‘Unload for Performance.’ When you push enough to get light in the seat, say +0.5g (half of a positive 1g) the airplane is also lighter. It will accelerate faster if it is lighter. Also, if you are lighter your stall speed is lower.
If you are close to the ground you may not have much time to recapture Vbg, so push like you mean it.
Beware of the pitching illusion. Not only will the nose attitude required be lower than expected, most pilots will think the nose is lower than it actually is. Pushing until light in the seat will make this effect seem even greater. The nose may be down 15 degrees, but the pilot would swear on a stack of Bibles that the nose is down 45 degrees! The correct amount of nose down will seem like too much. Don’t be fooled.
“Push until you are light in the seat, then aim AT the ground until Vbg is recaptured.” Relaxing back pressure is not near good enough. Don’t ‘mush’ or stall into the ground.
E) Techniques and Details
45 degrees of bank is optimum for the quickest turnaround, and it is what we use in the glider world when faced with a tow plane rope break at or above the safe altitude. The older studies have shown 45 degrees of bank is optimum, no matter what airplane you’re in. Charlie Precourts’ ‘Sport Aviation’ articles found the same optimum bank angle number.
You lose more feet per second at 45 degrees than in a shallower banked turn, but you are in the turn for less total seconds. Also, the turn at 45 degrees is smaller in radius as well as quicker. The study done by Dr. David F. Rogers, “The Possible ‘Impossible’ Turn,” is one of the many that show this, as does the B. W. Jett study. The PowerPoint on the internet called “Dealing With Engine Failure On Departure and the ‘Impossible’ Turn Decision” by Evan Reed and Ed Williams puts a lot of this study stuff together in a more digestible form.
These studies all show that 45 degrees of bank is optimum, but you don’t lose much by being at 40 degrees of bank. Anything more or less increases the altitude loss.
Barry Schiff, I, and others say use Best Glide Speed (Vbg) for the turnaround. Vbg is for the aircraft at max gross weight. This gives a buffer if you are lighter.
Remember, the airspeed gauge lags. In your practice memorize the pitch attitude needed for Vbg while turning and get to where you could establish it correctly even if the airspeed gauge was broken.
Here is where more controversy comes in. Most of the studies listed in this article showed the lowest altitude loss was in turning at 45 degrees of bank at a speed just above the banked stall speed. They accelerated to Vbg once the turn was done.
Boy, that makes me nervous as hell! We don’t need rusty pilots stalling the airplane when doing this maneuver, whether in real life or in practice! They would also be ripe for a spin entry. Do the maneuver at Vbg for me, please. Don’t go much faster than that, +5/-0, or you will increase your altitude loss and exponentially increase your turn radius. Precourts’ data was at Vbg.
The above paragraphs show why you must practice this maneuver yourself and not use a canned number from someone or somewhere else. You must find a safe return altitude in your airplane, using your technique. That is the only true number you can depend on, and you must practice it enough that it becomes second nature. In the glider world we practice this turnaround maneuver over and over and over until it is almost instinctual.
F) Close Enough As Well As High Enough?
Once you know your safe maneuvering altitude, when are you too far downrange to use it?
Takeoff on a hot day, with a shallower climb angle would do that. Practicing the maneuver as spelled out above, in the thinner air at 3000-4000 ft AGL, helps to account for density altitude problems. Think about weight as well. Most do not practice the above maneuver at max gross weight. Adding 50% to your height spelled out above helps with a lot of problems.
Barry Schiff also has a good guide for accounting for distance as well as height: “Under no circumstances should a turn back to the runway be initiated unless the aircraft has achieved at least two-thirds of the minimum turnaround height (as described) when passing over the departure end of the runway AND it also has reached at least the minimum turnaround height at the time of engine failure. Even then, there is no assurance of success.”
“This demonstrates that the airplane is capable of reaching the minimum turnaround height while close enough to the airport to have the ability to return. If you are not this high when passing the end of the runway, it means that either the runway is too short or the airplane will be too far from the airport to make a safe return by the time you finally reach the minimum turnaround height.” He continues on to say “…Furthermore, no pilot should attempt such a maneuver unless flying an aircraft for which he has personally determined the minimum turnaround height and is competent to perform such a maneuver during the stress of an emergency.”
The above is also why Schiff recommends climbing ½ way between Vx and Vy. “Most pilots initially climb after liftoff at either the speed for best angle (V X) or for best rate (V Y). The problem is that neither of these speeds best positions the airplane for the possibility of a turnaround. Climbing at V X places the aircraft in such a nose-high attitude that a pilot must vigorously force the nose down to preserve airspeed following an engine failure. This produces a high initial sink rate, thereby lessening the likelihood of a safe turnaround. Climbing at V Y in some airplanes can result in such a shallow climb that insufficient altitude is gained while still close enough to the airport to successfully turn around and land.”
See why I suggest avoiding intersection takeoffs? Runway ahead of you during takeoff is fantastic!
Precourts’ articles stress the need to climb steeper than Vy in the initial climb, but further states that we should have a better way to determine if we are close enough as well as high enough. It depends on the day. On a hot day, at a high enough pressure altitude, or both, we could be too far down range to make it back even if we were at the correct height. For right now, Schiff’s method of 2/3rds of the above safe return altitude by the end of the runway is the only good measure.
Since there is no climb data in most airplane manuals for a Vx climb, let alone halfway between Vx and Vy, we don’t currently have hard data to be sure if we are high enough and close enough with the current temperature and pressure altitude.
On climb out the aircraft needs to be above the glide angle to make a successful turn back. Precourt is suggesting data collection to build an app. In this app, which would know the climb and glide data for the airplane, we could plug in the current conditions. It would then tell us if we were close enough or not.
G) Wind on Takeoff
We’ve shown in the first illustration how approximately 270 degrees of turn are needed to do a “180 degree turnaround.”
On takeoff, a headwind will help you get higher closer to the runway. Once you turn around, a headwind on takeoff becomes a tailwind.
Now, think about any crosswind on takeoff before you push the throttle up. Turning into the wind for the turnaround will decrease the radius of the turn and the offset distance from the runway centerline. In the gliders we state out loud before takeoff the direction we are going to turn in the case of a rope break, assuming we are at or above the safe return altitude.
Maybe you shouldn’t takeoff straight out. There are some takeoff mitigation techniques being bandied about ‘out there.’
If you let yourself drift downwind on climb out, and then turn into the wind if an engine fails, the aircraft will require less than 270 degrees of turn to line up with the runway.
Another suggested technique by some is to turn 90 degrees after reaching 4-500 feet. If the engine failure happens after the turn, less heading change is required to get back to the runway. Of course, your distance to the side of the runway must still be close for you to make it. Beware of others in the traffic pattern.
You are the PIC. Every day is different, and every runway is different. Plan ahead.
H) Conclusion
Schiff ends his AOPA article with the following: “Some good news about this subject is that an engine failure after takeoff frequently can be avoided. It most often is caused by fuel mismanagement or attempting to depart with a detectable engine anomaly. Being more attentive and conservative can significantly reduce the possibility that you will be forced to choose between turning around and landing straight ahead.”
Rich Stowell agrees. The usual reasons for engine failure on takeoff are fuel exhaustion/starvation, fuel contamination, or carb ice on takeoff. Mechanical engine failures are a much, much lower probability.
Precourt noted that the experimental accident rate is presently about 4 times greater per 100,000 hours than the regular GA accident rate. It used to be 6 times greater. How did EAA and others help reduce that rate?
Precourt feels that one reason is the APP, or the FAA’s Additional Pilot Program for Phase I testing of amateur-built aircraft. This allows builders to have an additional expert pilot with them during early testing. Homebuilts were having their highest fatalities in the first 8 hours of test flying. The APP has really helped in that area.
The second reason is the new EAA Flight Test Manual, of which 2,700+ have been sold so far. Precourt says the manual “…which provides a task-based approach to Phase I. …The idea is not to just fly off 40 hours on the new aircraft…but to methodically collect data that results in a complete pilot’s operating handbook for the aircraft.” Each takeoff task in the manual encompasses much of the planning we have been talking about.
Maybe this could be the avenue for the data collection necessary to build a turnaround App?
EAA is launching a second edition of the Flight Test Manual that will also speak to second owner/non-builders. Precourt showed that second owners generate almost half of the experimental accident numbers.
Like I have said before, practice enough to get these life-saving tools into your safety tool bag, and then plot and scheme to never have to use them.
Fly Safe!
Schiff, Barry. “Technique: Unconventional Wisdom” “The Options After an Engine Failure.” http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/April/1/Technique-Unco…;
AOPA. “Impossible Turn – Practice Makes Possible”. https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/May/19/Impossible-tur….
B. W. Jett, Proc. AIAA 20th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-82-0406 (1982).
Stowell, Rich. “Emergency Maneuver Training.” 1996. Rich Stowell Consulting
Stowell, Rich. “The Light Airplane Pilot’s Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness.” 2007. Rich Stowell Consulting
FAA Safety Pamphlet FAA-P-8740-44 AFO-800-1283
Rogersy, David F. The Possible ‘Impossible’ Turn. United States Naval Academy Annapolis, Maryland 21402 dfr@usna.navy.mil
Reed, Evan and Williams Ed, “Dealing With Engine Failure On Departure and the ‘Impossible’ Turn Decision.” 2008. http://williams.best.vwh.net/turnback_seminar_Oct_2008.pdf
