Reality Check: The Runway Behind You
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2021
- Is the “impossible turn” in a single-engine airplane after all possible? Ask a group of pilots and you’ll stoke a passionate debate among opponents and proponents of what is known as the “180-degree turnback” to the departure runway after engine failure on takeoff.
The AOPA Air Safety Institute decided to test the disputed turnback theories, using a Piper PA-18 Super Cub, a Van’s RV-4, a Cessna 172N, and a Beechcraft Bonanza A36. Our study was conducted by highly experienced and proficient pilots flying predetermined profiles in near-perfect conditions. But the different results of turning back to the runway were surprising for each of us flying these profiles. You’ll see why in this Reality Check video.
Special thanks to Neil Doran, Tommy Blake and the staff at MRB for their support and coordination during the production of this video, and to Catherine Cavagnaro, Ace Aerobatic School, for technical consulting.
Apply credit to your ASI transcript for watching this video: bit.ly/RunwayBehindYouCert
To help make videos like these possible, consider donating to the AOPA Foundation: aopa.org/donation/oneclickdon...
Watch more videos by the AOPA Air Safety Institute on our channel: / airsafetyinstitute
I lost my 2 good buddies on December 20th of last year flying out of Grand Prarie Airport when they had an engine out situation in a Wheeler, right after takeoff. It is guessed that they only had about 500 to 750 feet altitude to work with, so they chose to try to land on a busy highway. Only it was just too busy with traffic, so they opted to try for the service road and almost made it. A pickup unknowingly pulled out of a gas station in front of them and that caused them to try and side slip around him, but a street light pole caught the left wing and ripped open the fuel tank. They ended up rearending the pickup and burst into flames before they could exit the aircraft and both burned alive. My friend John, the planes owner, was a fairly new pilot, but my long time flying buddy Larry in the right seat had many hours and was a CFI. They just ran out of room. And the Wheeler they were flying that day was not a "lets fly slow" aircraft. Had they been in the CFI's 182 I'm sure Larry could have made that landing.
These were great guys and we flew across country many times together over the years. I still miss them!
I was supposed to go with them that day to look at a twin engine airplane we were thinking of buying together.
I was behind on my Christmas Shopping or I would have gone with them.
Sorry for your loss. It's tough hearing those "almost made it" stories. In the interest in learning from tragedy, was there any other course of action they could have taken for a better outcome?
Sorry to hear about your buddies. It’s a situation you pray never happens to anyone.
Sorry for your loss
Awful. May they now be in complete repose. Isn't it crazy how, in aircraft that crash, an empty seat is the result of some small yet merciful fate ?
so sad, they couldn't do anything. they ran out of options, i guess.
Some accidents are unfortunately unavoidable.
I was gonna say I've never had any issues with turning back 180 and landing after an engine failure... but then I remembered I fly helicopters.
lol
"Kill engine then three-second delay to simulate a startle factor" Bro three seconds? In a helicopter that's enough time to stall your rotor and die... twice. :D :D :D
lmao
Nice one !
Good one!👍👍 But seriously it is called the impossible turn for a reason,, making this video is CRAZY to teach this!!👎👎👎👎
This is a horrible case of irony, condolences to Richard's family.
I don't think this video should be taken down however, because it's used as a tool for all future pilots so we can learn from it. Still, horrible coincidence that Richard narrated this video and then 2 years later died in the same way.
I don't see an irony here. The take away of this video is that you SHOULD be practicing these to know your aircraft minimums and what are they.
@@komrad1983 the AOPA vice president narrated this video, and he died this Sunday because they tried to make the turn back to the runway after a takeoff emergency. It's a horrible situation but ironic. Irony isn't always "funny" it's just a term used to show a connection between two things
@@tripodman322 I just found out about this, yea in this case you can say so.
I'm not sure if this video should be taken down or not... But at the very least it should be updated. The video gives some sort of false hope that The Impossible Turn can be accomplished by some types of aircraft and under experienced pilotage. However reality proved otherwise...this was a highly trained pilot and he was flying an aircraft comparable to a Cessna 172. It's not even worth practicing The Impossible Turn.
@chrisr6385 yes an overall take-away should be captioned about the demise of the narrator and how we now understand why it's not worth the gamble.
That’s why it’s a super cub. Not an okay cub.
Underrated comment 👍
A couple things to note from someone who has actually done this for real:
1) Your departure angle from the from the airport is going to be the biggest factor of whether you can actually make it.
As we have seen this is a result of the aircrafts climb profile, but wind speed is a very large factor as well. With a 15 knot headwind, you’d probably find that the Cessna 172 would overshoot and/or have difficulty stopping in the remaining runway, while the Bonanza would benefit from getting drag out (gear, flaps, prop fine) and make it. The departure angle is also affected by temperature and humidity. The Cessna 172 also wouldn’t make it at hot and high conditions as its departure angle is too close to or even below its glide profile.
2) The amount of turning you need to do will be dependent on a couple factors. How tight you make the first turn, how much drift you have and whether you compensate for it, and whether you turn into any crosswind or away from it.
I noticed that all of the pilots here turned left. Instinctive for pattern work, visibility on side-by-side aircraft (which the Cub and RV are not) and goes with left turning tendencies (irrelevant though with no power). Left may not be the best direction.
So for my method, I do this:
I let the plane drift downwind after takeoff. Obviously not if there are obstacles or traffic, but even vector SIDs out of a large airport are runway heading with parallel departures.
I take note of how far I am from the runway by the time I reach altitude. Again, in a Cessna 172 high altitude hot day no wind... it’s physically impossible to make it back to the runway from 600 feet because of how far out you’ll be by the time you reach it. Unless you have a turn after departure, you won’t ever make it back at any altitude. Don’t let this video fool you saying that a Cessna 172 could make it back easily.
For the failure itself, if your profile suggests you could make it back based on altitude, distance, and wind... turn OPPOSITE the direction of drift and turn as tight as you can. 60 degrees of bank while throwing out flaps. Pull to the stall horn or buffet, and sacrifice altitude to maintain airspeed. Forget the ground school “60 degrees is 2Gs and 1.4x stall speed”... that’s for level flight. You aren’t pulling anywhere near 2G and since stall warning/buffet is based on Angle of Attack they will always give you warning. Don’t panic.. sacrifice that altitude, and respect those warnings.
It is not for the faint of heart, but it makes the second turn that you have to do even lower much easier. Do not panic if you see the ground or trees or houses rush up at you. If you run out of room.. roll wings level, keep your airspeed, and accept what’s in front of you-if you keep control, you will likely survive. If you spin, or stall... you are dead.
If you’ve done the first turn well.. you should be offset by maybe 30 degrees rather than 45 or more. Determine at which point your plane will comfortably glide and if it is slightly short... plan to enter ground effect there to stretch the glide, if you can. If it is long, forward slip or reduce airspeed slightly from best glide to steepen the descent.
Of course, remaining straight ahead is probably the best for most pilots. Even in built up areas... as long as you have a controlled crash, you will probably survive. Even into a wood stick house.
The reason why the FAA would rather you land straight ahead is because of the discourse I just gave. It’s far too complex and there are far too many factors to effectively teach it safely.
So please don’t assume your 172 can do this all of the time. The insurance company owns the plane as soon as the engine quits. Don’t be afraid to destroy it to save your life.
Amazing comment. Glad I saw this. There are a few flaws in this video for sure
Agreed.
So many factors to consider, all of which must be figured on the ground before you leave.
Before I finished reading I was going to comment “That’s far too complicated to remember and process in a pinch” but you said exactly that. I would not be trying this unless I was at a sufficient altitude.
Very well said. I'd fly with you any day.
So terribly ironic how the man in this video died because of this very topic. So sad.
did they do a video about his crash?
Remember, you don't have to get back to the runway! Any hard surface will do: taxiway, ramp, access road. There are usually other options available at an airport. That's how I do my pre-departure briefing: going over what surfaces are available in case of an engine failure.
You dont have to turn at all...straight ahead and look for a spot. USE THE TIME WISELY.
all the grass between runways is fair game as well.
@@speedomars3869 I'd say if you don't already know which way you are gonna turn ahead of time, then don't try turning
@@SuperPhunThyme9 The impossible turn is impossible. The correct emergency plan is to look AHEAD and see where to set down.
RIP Richard,you left us with so many questions, why? Why did you die in an impossible turn back? Just seems unfathomable! The rest of us will be perplexed long after you are fair welled!🙁
He was in the right seat and was likely not the pilot flying.
We might never know.
Another thing is even if Richard tried to regain control the person sitting in the pilots seat was a returned NFL player.
Under these conditions if the NFL was panicked or under stress it would be almost impossible to muscle the controls away from him etc.
Just because planes have two yokes doesn't mean the copilot or a CFI during a training flight is able to use them if the other person is frozen on those controls.
I think we can learn if there is 2 pilots on board to establish prior departure who will handle any emergencies. and if you're a single pilot of how important departure briefing is so you have a game plan right away.
I don't know if this was the case here, but regardless, there is something on the table that cannot be ignored.
An excellent and eye-opening video that’s admittedly heartbreaking to watch a few days after the passing of Richard McSpadden and Russ Francis. RIP and thank you.
Reducing prop RPM by pulling the blue knob out in the bonanza will reduce drag, but that only works if you have oil pressure. In a true engine failure, you don't have that oil pressure.
I'm surprised it doesn't fail fully feathered.
@@Saml01 some planes do, like multi-engine planes mostly I believe. For single engines, I believe you want it to fail to the high-RPM position because you could have an oil leak in the prop hub that is isolated from the engine oil. That way, you can make an emergency landing and have high-torque available to you. When you pull the prop to low-RPM in a single engine, the blade pitch doesn't go very high anyways, because they only anticipated it pitching for a cruise power setting, not a low-drag engine-out setting
EDIT: on second thought, if you had an oil leak isolated at the hub, the prop going to low pitch would result in the governor delivering more oil to the prop hub to attempt to increase blade pitch to rectify the sudden increase in RPM. I suppose the pilot could observe oil spewing out and reduce power and move the prop control forward, and that would result in stopping the oil being dumped overboard.
@@Saml01 What holds the blade angle is oil pressure acting against spring pressure. Also centrifugal twisting moment is part of the balance. If the manufacturer wants the prop to feather you will have the spring acting in that direction. That way the prop will still feather with no oil pressure. It is vital to have a feathering prop on multis due to assymetric thrust after engine failure. But for singles the spring will act in the opposite sense to keep the prop at fine pitch. That way you get the maximum windmilling effect to keep the prop turning. This should be seen in the context that an engine often quits because you have something set wrong, such as fuel cock, and so the engine will spring back to life as soon as you correct that and you don't even need to crank it. But you get a significant drag penalty with the prop in fine pitch and cannot glide as far. Nonetheless, a windmilling prop will still produce enough oil pressure (the governor unit actually has its own pump) to set the prop to low rpm for the glide if you can't restart. The question of how long a failed engine can supply oil to the CS unit is like the length of a piece of string. There is not a high rate of oil flow through the CS unit as there is through the engine, it is basically a cylinder full of oil, some being let in or out as the governor modulates the pressure. Nonetheless the pressure will go down over time if there is literally no oil left at the pick-up to keep it topped up.
I think, it should "father" itself (a bit) to low RPM (higher AOA) if engine stops. This was "their" problem: with engine idle and prop set for high RPM - it has a low AOA and soooo much drag. In "real life" it might be a bit better (less prop drag) with real "dead stick" compared to "simulated".
But don't count on it: if you cannot make it simulated - you cannot make it for sure in case of a real emergency.
(and they could not make it due to "shallow" bank: with heavy wing-loaded airplane, faster "best glide speed" - you need a steeper bank angle. Why 45deg. should be the common rule (for all airplanes)?
We were test flying a '61 Piper Colt, PA-22-108, I wanted to buy a couple weeks ago. Shortly after takeoff the cabin quickly filled with smoke and smelled of burnt oil. We still had power but visibility quickly became an issue. We turned back with the window open and door cracked. Little hairy trying that in a plane you've never flown, in front of the owners, not at your home airport and to top it off, the mic started cutting out.
We pulled it off and landed safely. Pulled mixture and coasted off the runway toward the sellers. Turns out rubber valve gaskets were tightend down too much and pinched.
Few cork gaskets, new radio and $1,000 off the price later, I now own a '61 Piper Colt! 😜
LoL, very brave to buy a bird that almost kills you. Congrats!
@David Donaldson
It's all wing, very light, no flaps to deal with and short landing distance. At least made for a simple turn back. Not sure it'd have been as easy in a Cherokee I'm used to flying.
@@StevenLeoKorell With flaps it is easier to turnback with power on cherokees. Safer with 10 flaps. Like a slow flight turn at Vfinal speed. I learned turnbacks on a cherokee 140 at 1,600 rpm, 500 agl after take off to a 4k feet long runway. Mild winds...
@@outwiththem
My daily for the past 2 years was my school's PA28 161. The Colt is a high wing with no flaps though.
New gaskets, radio and underwear... 😉👍
To me it was apparent in the opening statements, before the experiment was even run, a turn back for an average pilot in the majority of statistical situations, is not even close to a viable option.
They might have the intention in mind: "you are a non-experienced, silly pilot! We = AOPA (ASI) - we are the great guys".
(flying so reckless)
BS. Then you are saying that the average USA GA pilot cannot do a 40-45 degree turn at Vglide at 700 agl??. Then they should not be flying. DAm cowards if that is true. That is a non difficult to do task for a real pilot. When i did my GRM training we had to bank 45 degrees at 600 agl on the tailwind section. I had 5-6 hours of flight only. You have to know how to do those.
For a fake maggot, it will scream.. Help, it is a 40 degree banking turn,!! Help me papa.. GTFO..
@@torstenjaekel1687 Then you are saying that the average USA GA pilot cannot do a 40-45 degree turn at Vglide. Then they should not be flying. That is a non difficult to do task for a real pilot.
A coward will scream.. Help, it is a 40 degree banking turn,!! Help me papa. Help me... o my gaaad!! GTFO..
Correct. The flaw in any idea to practice an impossible turn is doomed to failure because the pilot already knows they are gonna attempt one. They will also not be low and slow as in real life, they will allow themselves a margin for error to succeed...which defeats the purpose.
@@speedomars3869 Depends on altitude and if know exactly how to do them. Just like crosswind landings, you dont try them without training. If you do, you are stupid.
Keeping the aircraft above stall speeds whatever aircraft type whether straight and level or with 60 bank angle is ALWAYS the critical factor. When a wing drops because lift is gone, close to the ground, you are history.
Actually, angle of attack. Speeds are just a one-removed indicator of that, and under various load conditions, will change.
1:16 I wanted to see a turnbacks in those Military Transport planes. :)
They don't need to. They're multi-engine.
@ Craig W
Just like that A320 out of LGA a few years ago. ;)
Just watched a Mini Air Crash Investigation today about a C-17 that overshot a runway recently.
They do steep spirals to land on dangerous fields. They are not cowards. No pendejos allowed in USA military..
The "Impossible Turn" is a standard part of the Hungarian PPL training. That said, I know of one very experienced pilot who died trying to save a plane on a test flight after maintenance.
That's interesting. In Serbia we do not do it as part of PPL training.
In New Zealand we are taught to not turn after an engine failure on take off. We are to pick a safe field in front of us to land in.
@@catherinekilgour2563 Yep, 30 degrees left or right for low altitudes for me
Turnbacks can be used also on GRM Flyovers, Circle to land and Box Canyon Turnbacks, plus LOTOT and EFATO. 4 places doing back turnbacks have killed many "Experienced Pilot' That didnt know Turnbacks..
A real-world case study on this topic was long overdue. Thank you for putting this together Practiced 3 of these - at altitude - in my Cherokee 140 during my Flight Review wtih my CFI last weekend. My range of altitude loss for a 270 degree turn was 400-500' using 80mph and 45 degrees of bank.
I used to own a Cherokee 140. My hunch is that it would perform similarly to a Bonanza. Altitude loss at altitude in a 360 degree turn is what you need to know. If you practice one off the runway, pad the altitude, take a CFI with you and pay close attention to the environmental factors: DA, winds, and runway length. Watch the potential for a stall/spin in the turnback, stall speed increases substantially with higher bank. Fly Safe.
Like a brick falling out of the sky.
@@richardmcspadden9189 @Jerry Webster
The EAA (Charlie Precourt wrote the article) did some flight testing on various models and published in May Sport Pilot. A PA28-140 with a new engine was successful. 2 other PA28 attempts were not. PA28-140's could have anywhere from 140 to 160 HP when running correctly.
Every take off is different. I think distance to runway VS altitude at engine failure is a key factor, and I do not see much discussion here.
Without thinking too much about it, I suspect each aircraft would have minimum climb gradient number that would help define the feasibility of turning back at a given altitude. With today's electronics that number could be monitored and provide early warning of reductions in power output, from late mag timing, worn cams or restricted exhaust.
@john schreiber, liked your comment. Could you text me or message me if you would like to discuss more? One of our best PA-24 comanche pilots did this test and another a test on landing straight ahead in a PA-30 after rotation. We are currently setting up a “ComancheZOOM” (zoom meeting every Thursday night, many we cooperate with FAA for WINGS credit). I think your statement about distance from runway being under-emphasized is right and your idea compliments. Thanks!
@@johnschreiber1574 see reply above. Sorry, don’t comment much.
I really do recommend trying this *with a CFI* in your plane. That will give you the best idea of what a pilot of your skills can do in your plane. It'll also help with the startle factor if it ever happens in real life.
As they said in the video, try it at altitude first, then with a real runway.
In my experience in a 172, making the runway wasn't the problem - with a decent headwind my problem was that I was getting blown past the runway to the point where I would have overshot, and going around isn't an option when you're deadsticking.
Also worth noting that, in a real failure, close is good enough at most airports. If you just make it back to the flat ground near the runway your chances of survival are pretty high. You might ding up the airplane a bit, but once the engine fails it belongs to the insurance company anyways!
The first demonstration of this in a 172 I had was exactly that. The instructor overshot the runway.
Other times I tried I undershot due to the poor climb rate of the 172 on hot days... making its departure angle too close to or even below the glide profile.
This video suggests that it’s aircraft type that will ensure success... when that is definitely not the case.
A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous.
I too ran into this during practice - at 600ft (or 800ft which I’ve set as my minimum) in an Archer it’s possible you will do your turn and overshoot if the winds are high, then you have to do a strong slip to drop altitude.
My M20E does very well with this maneuver. The 200HP climb at Vy usually puts me high and close enough to the runway to make it back if the engine quits during takeoff. It really should be taught for the commercial exam.
Particularly if "any bit of flat ground" is your best alternative when you do not attempt the turnback.
@@DrWhom And if you’re surrounded by dense urban area with no other alternative, then what? Check out Bowman Field in Louisville, KY for a good example taking off to the west.
Great analysis guys! Now I know that if I want to attempt the impossible turn I must first know location, time and altitude my unpredictable engine failure occurs.
Yeah, I don’t think ASI caught the sarcasm of this comment. I performed those before in my GA days, within a reasonable margin of safety. Not that I’m the worlds greatest pilot or anything, but when you know it’s going to happen you react to it quickly. When you have an actual engine failure in that scenario, there’s a level of confusion that may add a second or two to the procedure, which makes a big difference.
As a CFI I make it a point to never demonstrate maneuvers that I don't want my students to attempt solo, especially during primary training.
Your students cannot turn at 45 degree bank?? You dont teach steep turns on GRM??
@@outwiththem For GRMs 45° is the MAXIMUM bank angle for the initial downwind entry which ensures that all of your subsequent turns will be less than that - ideally around 30°. In reality if you need 45° bank to complete the turn then you either have too much airspeed or it’s just too darn windy to be dong that maneuver. Upper air work like steep turns should always be conducted at a MINIMUM of 3000’ AGL.
@@lellius I learned GRM in 1974. Nowhere i saw that you could turn 30 deg or less even if downwind turning. The area was always 10 15 knots winds. We turned as needed to align. Up to 45 bank when downwind. At around Vfinal speed and10 flaps. Very safe and efficient.. Pilots should know how to turn up to 45 dg at least.
Lellius, I like your style. Set the example for the primary student.
Keep it up. 👍🏻
@@dmc8078 That is BS. That is teaching Wimpy Winds GRM only. A real pilot should know how to turn 45 degree under TPA when needed to correct for winds, birds, etc.
Most turning stalls are because the wimp started turning too shallow bank, then when see was going to overshoot, he turned steeper to 45 degrees, but the idiot dont know how to do that, and stalled the airplane. Thousansd have died due shallow to steep turning errors..
In my country, we always learned to fly straight ahead or to the nearest field/ no obstacle area. If altitude is avail, then return.
At what altitude it is OK to return? Or do you just guess when you're in the air?
@@tomsmith3045 You have to know what altitude from before you take off. Never turnback in the blind..
@@outwiththem Exactly. This is my point. My instruction is to brief on the specific altitudes between stay on the ground, fly w/in 30 degrees straight, and turn back, for each flight. I do that for every flight.
@@tomsmith3045 Right. First step, when i do the preflight, i notice the winds speed and direction. If too strong, like say 13 knot or over, i say.. If engine off, even at 1k feet im going into the wind, and no turnback. I fly from a 3,000 feet long runway.
@@outwiththem :) Sounds like great planning. Where I generally fly out of, it depends on the direction of flight. One way, into a headwind, I'd just land in the field at the end of the runway. Going the other way, into a headwind, above my decision height I would turn back, carefully because of the speed differential, knowing that I might be blown back long, and overrun into the field going the other way. No matter what, though, we both have a plan.
***True Story*** At My Last in Person FIRC class, the instructor was talking about the "impossible turn".. the gentlemen sitting in front of me turned around and said "don't ever do that impossible nonsense.. land straight ahead, no matter what aircraft you're in"... That Gentlemen was Dick Rutan...
Dick has a lot of absolutes he lives by, not all of them valid. There's all kinds of qualifications implicit in blanket statements. The person delivering them does little to change the physics of reality. You literally saw several examples of a mixed bag of results, but you're doubling down on "straight ahead" or bust.
Perhaps consider a trial turn back at altitude might be a call for every pilot in the aircraft they spend 90% of their flight hours in.
And I absolutely agree with Dick--HE should not attempt it, as he's likely in a Vari-Eze and won't make it, even without the spin the canard protects him from.
@@macblastoff7700 Forget "protection from spins" (a dangerous assumption anyway), the math just doesn't work out. Unless you are flying something with a very good angle of climb (regardless of Vx/Vy/whatever flown), most aircraft are going to have a very hard time doing a "180" back to the runway, and make it.
I squirm doing returns in my glider from 300 ft, and that thing has a 48:1 glide ratio at 50 kts (105 ft/min RoD and 2.3 NM glide range under ideal conditions from that altitude).
I think Dick might have some choice words for this McSpadden yahoo hot-dogging in his Super Cub in the name of "safety".
You should never say never for a thing that used well can save your life. Like having a gun at home and saying you will never use it. Then you need to use it, but in the denial, you hesitate and get shot for not using it when you had time to. Stupid or not??
It is stupid to say you will never do something you might need to do.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 i used to be a flight instructor, we practiced the impossible turn. This maneuver works in a 172 with minimal fuel from an airport at sea level when you're anticipating it. I have a 182, and a Baron 58, 99% of our flights are at max gross, in different kinds of weather from many different airports, the cargo is my family. I can 100% tell you i will never attempt the impossible turn in the event of a(n) engine(s) failure.
FAA examiner: "How much altitude would you expect to lose in a turn back to the airport if your engine died right after takeoff? " Me: "I'd expect to lose all of it."
I don't understand how ASI is exempt from the regulations they recited in the video... The regulation calls for performing it at a safe altitude for practice but they do it anyway at an unsafe altitude.
Amen!
How was it not a safe altitude?
AOPA (ASI) shows you how to be RECKLESS!
Valentino Dagher So short approaches and crosswind landings should not be practiced also?? Only Mild Maneuvering training??? Wimpy pilots like that. Man up...
What is the regulation here? I thought they had good advice and the turns looked coordinated, nose down / airspeed focus looked good etc.
I personally use 500ft agl for turnaround minimums in a 172, which is something that I regularly practice. If the wind is a stronger headwind sometimes I can't make the runway, not because I can't turn around, but because I would run out of runway. Personally on every departure breifing I brief what the turnaround minimums are depending on the wind, runway length, and current conditions.
500 ft to turnaround in a real situation with human factor isn't possible at my opinion, but 750 ft is safe. Off course depends of wind, turn to the wind, because you will have wind that will reduce your GS but, you will have Airspeed, and when finish the turn the wind will push in to the runway.
Really fantastic video. Well put together with a great message.
Especially that last line.
I totally agree.
Do you encourage people to practise this? I think you need to pull the video down or amend it with warnings. FAA AC clearly states practise these exercises at safety altitude +3000 agl with a rated CFI.
@@hamishdavidson3368 I agree Hamish, this demonstration was a little wreckless if you ask me.
A fantastic video to tell you, how to kill you "better"
(as a pilot you would think twice about this video)
This is a fantastic video. Thank you for doing these tests and having the courage to put them up. I'm willing to bet there will be some criticism, but it's hard to see fault in the precautions and care you took here. I've always suspected that the slow speed and high climb angle of some aircraft would make turn back much more reasonable than in others, but I didn't expect the effect would be so extreme. No kidding, this video is causing me to reverse my decision to let my AOPA membership lapse. It is a reminder that there are folks there doing positive things for GA.
For a long runway with a strong headwind, landing straight ahead is an option. For a short runway and a strong headwind, there will be a potent tailwind, which means the airplane will have a very high ground speed and cover a lot of ground before touchdown and likely overshoot the end of the runway. Another good "with CFI"experience is to find an airport where there are no other aircraft and attempt a landing in a tai wind. It's quite impressive what a 10 kt tailwind will do in increasing landing distance - very impressive. Make that a 20 kt tailwind and you better have one long runway ahead of you after the turn back landing. If the headwind is strong, and the runway is short behind you and terrain permits, landing straight ahead with a low ground speed due to a strong headwind might be the best way to go.
Very helpful. Thank you. Also, love the whole channel. Very informative and well produced instructional videos. Big fan.
Good experimental procedure, but I had to watch twice to understand that the reason the Bonanza failed was not because it didn't have enough altitude to make the turns, but because by the time it reached that altitude on climb-out, it was too far from the runway to both turn AND make it back. Perhaps wing loading is a useful number to keep in mind.
And outright speed!
Bonanza flight team doesn't discuss climbing speed chosen. Either the bonanza has a lazy clump or the pilots didn't choose steepest climb. Can't complain about over speed if you are aren't climbing for effect. But clearly, if climb angle is worse than glide ratio, this is only going to work in a headwind.
Best video I ever saw about turn backs. Great job. Every GA pilot needs to watch this. It’s better to know what is possible versus what is not in order to make the correct decision
Thanks for watching and for the kind comment.
It's also better to make your turns while you still have HP making the airplane fly. So turn crosswind earlier, like at no runway or fields remaining ahead.
It's great to generate awareness about this topic, but this vid is quite a bit less well thought-out than the EAA webinar from last year on the same topic, which outlined how to measure your planet's glide and climb characteristics using foreflight or similar and superimpose them on a map of your home airport to answer this question definitively. Conceptually it also did a better job of explaining why the relationship between climb and glide slopes for a given airplane is what determines whether the turn back will work, in addition to load, prevailing wind/crosswind vs headwind, bank angle etc. Their data collection effort for various aircraft is public and free:
The webinar video can be accessed here with an EAA membershipwww.eaa.org/videos/webinars/loss-of-control-and-emergencies
I really think organizations like AOPA and EAA should be working together on major safety efforts and I am surprised this video makes no reference to the previous work done on the subject very recently by other groups.
Um, AOPA, I have a question. What is the nimber one cause of GA fatal accidents? LOCI if I remember my Nall Report correctly. Why are you advocating for turning back at all? You are low and slow, and now you want to make a max performance turn? This is a LOCI event just waiting to happen. Why are you going against the FAA AC? I teach my students to land straight ahead and if you have to turn to avoid an obsticle, no more than 30 degrees left or right. I also teach them to be spring loaded to push the nose down immediately upon losing the engine. They even brief that before they take the runway. Here you are advocating for going against FAA recommendations, and decades of data that says turning back to the runway is a terrible idea. I hope that nobody takes your advice and dies as a result.
It's good to keep an open mind. The world isn't so black and white. If you're trained and prepared for incidents like this they've shown it's safe in some aircraft. Not everybody has nice fields and large roads right off departure end
You're right about the nal report, and loss of control being #1 killer. That's exactly why this video is such a good one. It points out that in many aircraft, under many conditions, you're just not going to make it back. It's not a matter of pilot skill, it's physics.
@John Doe That's not only unfair, it's inaccurate. The accident rate isn't going up, it's been going down for years, only recently has stalled. If you look at part 91 (general aviation) accidents, NALL report statistics, a good percentage of them are from commercial pilots and ATP's, including loss of control. In the 121 environment, when they're using specific procedures like DMMS, the accident rate is incredibly low. But toss that out, and put the ATPs in single engine planes without those procedures, and they're making the exact same mistakes that PP's do.
@John Doe Attitude does have a lot to do with it. Many people are just careless, don't seek out the right training, don't stay current, etc. But that's ATP's as well as PPLs. And some of these poor people just didn't get the right training. The last bit is what bugs me the most. If you're just training to the ACS minimum, the FAA might think you're OK, but I don't. And that part is fixable.
@John Doe Maybe I'm too optimistic. My thought process is that all pilots understand the risk is squarely their responsibility, and that if they realize they lack a particular skill they'll fix it, before they end up in a crumpled up ball of aluminum. I don't think increasing mandatory hours or increasing the frequency of flight reviews would help. Practicing the same old things won't fill in gaps in knowledge. Adjusting ACS a bit might help, but I doubt if that will happen soon, as last time they did this, they made it worse not better (slow flight change). The mindset of avoiding risky parts of the envelope makes sense, but not at the expense of learning basic flying skills. My thought is that just bringing awareness to the fact that training to ACS minimums isn't either safe or reasonable will make student pilots aware that they have some responsibility to seek good training, and instructors that they have some responsibility to teach beyond ACS as well would help. Saying that out loud, it may not sound reasonable that 141 schools will teach anything that isn't mandated, but if there becomes a consensus that minimums aren't good enough they'll have to adjust.
I only have 30 hours, but can easily discern this video is more dangerous for thousands of others to be mislead by than the actual number of engine outs.
Did you ever do the required GRM Rectangular Pattern for student pilots?? YOU didnt?? If windy, on the downwind turn, you are required to turn 45 degree bank or overshoot the turn. Also if wind, on the downwind side of S Turns.
Sorry for you. Or your CFI could only teach Wimpy Winds GRM? All pilots should know how to turn 45 degree bank when needed and say at 600agl. Cant do that?? Shame. Mild Maneuvering Makes Maggots..
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 wut
@John Doe Ah I thought they explicitly said to do it - at 9:10 "fly with a CFI - at altitude *first"
@John Doe Well to be clear I have 32 hours now... but I think despite having so much more experience now, I concur obviously. In fact I will never do this.
@John Doe thanks! It was an amazing experience!
Why do these tests so close to the ground? It could've gone wrong real quick.
to think how many pilots will watch this and try it.....and how many innocent people they'll kill in the process.
Good ole fashioned STUPID.Not even mentioning landing on the grass or ANY flat spot.When your aircraft gives you up its the insurance companys at that point.Hard to cash an insurance check if you get killed trying to make the runway.AOPA and NRA,all about add revenue and lining ceo pockets,not about the average guy.
Because these were not gliders... you can always go around just like they did on the attempts that would not have made it back.
@@blackhd92 Not the point of the video. Every pilot is already taught to look for a field to land in if an engine quits on takeoff. This was to see if it's possible to make it back to the other direction of your departure runway, and it often times is possible. Advisable? Maybe not. The proficient pilot will need to make that decision for his/herself.
@@CarterHancock ever consider a potential stall/spin scenario? The super cub's stall warning horn was going off while in a bank. The warning horn is designed to alert a near stall situation when are wings level. Now factor in a bank angle throughout the turn, wing loading is increased along with the stall speed. No amount of power will allow the plane to recover from a spin at 400' agl. Was it neat to see a pilot fly the ragged edge and make it back to the runway? Sure it was, however it was just as much a reckless exercise under the guise of the "Air Safety Institute" encouraging others to do the same reckless act with an instructor. AOPA needs to do better because this was poorly thought out and executed in the lense of safety.
This reminds me a lot of my military days flying the U-2, where a good portion (about half) of each practice pattern (“low”) sortie was spent practicing flameout patterns. We knew from performance data, flight test and experience the minimum altitude from which you could start the turn back maneuver and expect to reach a minimum “low key” abeam the departure runway with enough altitude to start the 180 back around to the departure runway and land. Even practicing this maneuver is not without hazard. We had specific restrictions on practicing the maneuver; we could not start it from initial takeoff as that technique actually resulted in an accident. Something I would suggest for anyone practicing this is to initiate the pushover, establish your glide speed, then initiate the turn. Yes, you will lose some altitude, but it will result in a more stable maneuver and avoid a simultaneous pushover into unloaded flight with a roll into a bank and the potential for inadvertent entry into an accelerated stall. Additionally, it may be more safer/more stabilized if one chooses a gliding 180 into a position abeam the landing surface, followed by a 180 turn back onto the departure runway in these situations, vice the 90/90 S-turn to the reciprocal heading. Whatever one does, they have to remember this is a maneuver flown close to the ground with very little space to recover if you mess it up. We had an ejection seat in the U-2 and even then, it was a maneuver that we practiced within very specific parameters. Fly safe.
Awesome and valuable knowledge ! Thank you for sharing this incredible data!
Great video guys! Not a new subject, of course, but I really like how you approached it. Making multiple realistic simulations in different planes was eye opening. Good advice at the end too.
You gotta be damn good at flying to do this.
A pilot, not a fake..
I'm not a pilot at all. And I enjoy watching these AOPA videos. They are very well put together. The explainations are so simple even a non-pilot like myself can understand.
This video is DANGEROUS for pilots!!!!! (and maybe killing more in the future)
Very good video. Thank you!
It's just heartbreaking to watch this now. Condolences to all.
“Don’t try what we just showed you can work” [because we shouldn’t have tried and shown you in the first place]
Makes my head hurt. Okay in the event of a real engine failure on take-off, I appreciate the 3 second startle factor but you have to already have turn back in mind or just pick a smooth spot in front of you that will suffice as a makeshift runway. I think so therefore it will be dangerous for me to second guess my first guess. Find a place where you will survive and hopefully so will the airplane .... a discussion to be had with the CFI this week. I do appreciate the mental exercise and the review of real world techniques.
Very sobering. Thank you for posting this and for the testing you did.
Quite a documentary on your Egos. .... no old, bold pilots............
GREAT VIDEO - thanks for testing this scenario for the aviation community!! Important to note - these tests were conducted in the most optimal weather conditions. I still believe in using that valuable time, altitude, and air-speed to find a suitable landing in front of you is better overall. And even better... plan your emergency landing zone on google maps prior to flying. Thanks again guys - this was a great video!!!
that is what is generally taught as being the most viable option, due to the high number of variables involved in each example as encountered in the power out on departure event. consider it - the external influences alone can overwhelm - wind, temps, obstacles, craft configuration. then - props, load, distance, altitude - who's to know what's what in the space of 2 to 3 seconds? intelligent and careful people can and do panic. flying can be dangerous and gliding onward & forward may actually be the best way to return to earth safely! ; )
Dead stick turn back you're not worried about lining up with the runway. I'd be aiming for the grass.
if there is enough of that
You should be aiming for grass or a road STRAIGHT AHEAD. As soon as you turn you lose altitude and precious time to pick a spot.
Great video, very informative thank you.
Thank you for the video! and for your advice!
Being a student pilot, this video reinforced the need for a greater understanding of safety in flying a plane even more then I imagined! Tks to all you guys for taking the time to produce it... 🙌🏻👏🏻👏🏻
As a student pilot, you're off to a great start, consuming safety material. It will make you a better, safer pilot. Many great adventures ahead for you!
@@richardmcspadden9189 Thank You! Your comment means a lot to me! 👏🏻👏🏻
@Joe Castro - a Warrior I was learning in had had an engine failure on base leg in the circuit.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54230488ed915d1371000cb5/Piper_PA-28-161__G-BUFY_01-95.pdf
It was the student pilot's first solo and it must have been very exciting. He kept his cool and avoided the temptation for any heroics. It's quite a built-up area also. The aircraft was repaired, pilot minor injuries.
*than
Be as proficient as possible in the aircraft you fly. Make a written pre takeoff plane for EVERY takeoff. Study and know the airport and surrounding terrain/landing options, don't overlook the possibilities of landing on a cross runway or taxiway. Train to push the nose down immediately on decreased rpm/deceleration (flight chops did a great video on this) Practice doing speed/altitude callouts on takeoff roll and climbout, and know what your plan is at that configuration. All the best in your training, blues skies and fair winds!
Little preplanning does wonders, as does home field advantage. My old field had a railroad grade right down the centreline for miles in one direction, nothing the other until you reach the mall or the freeway. Two other fields, SOL, they’re in the middle of town. One has the freeway that nobody uses, but you’d have to remember to shoot for it. Brilliant demonstration, perhaps those who move up in aircraft and performance had gotten used to the ability to do so in their smaller and slower aircraft, only to be caught attempting the procedure in an emergency, and end up only halfway though it, and falling out of the sky.
Nice work y’all. Very cool and helpful.
Great video and experiment/demonstration! Thanks
Haunting.... Rest in peace
A very informative video! The main takeaway I get is that a smaller. lighter, fixed pitch prop airplane will do much better with the turnback maneuver. I have a glider rating, and I think that helps me significantly. During my ASEL training, my instructor cut the power on downwind, and had me do a simulated engine out approach. Turning short final, he told me to put the power back in, and I assured him it was not necessary..... a smooth landing followed. I strongly encourage everyone to take a few lessons in gliders. It won't help your airplane, but will give you some skill in flying an engineless airplane.
Also known as glider experience
Also gliders are way more fun to fly imo
As a SEL,MEL instructor, glider transition pilots were always a challenge because they wanted to land so flat. :-) Flaring does not seem to be part of the glider experience. :-)
That's been my mantra for years now. The FAA should mandate glider training before anyone is allowed to get a power rating. It would save so many lives. Never happen, of course. No bureaucrat would ever instigate any significant change to the status quo that could have a potentially negative influence his or her career path.
Excellent video, thank you
Goodnight! I arrived at this video on the recommendation of the Branco Aviação channel, the best about flight safety in Brazil 🇧🇷. Thanks for the simulations.
As a flight instructor, glider pilot, and air traffic controller who is working to develop training for fellow air traffic controllers about emergencies, my perspective for controllers is a little unique. My recommendation is that engine failures after takeoff resulting in possible turnbacks will happen so fast that the decision is 100% up to the pilot, not the controller, but the controller has a role once the pilot begins to turn back to remind the pilot to keep the airplane under control. This video is invaluable for helping me and others to visualize what would actually be happening in the cockpit, in addition to my own previous flight testing. Thanks AOPA!
Good luck with everything you are doing and thanks for all the effort you are putting in to really learn your craft -- we are all better for it!
I agree that practicing this, at altitude with a cfi, should be standard pratice when transiting to a new aircraft. For those glider pilots this is a standard part of the check ride but easy.
Fantastic video! Thank you.
Excellent work guys, very eye opening.
Any CFI practicing this at low altitude with a student should have their ticket revoked.
Any pilot seen in this video flying so reckless has to be cited to give up their license
The reason we're coming back is most unfortunate. Rest in peace.
It remains frustrating that this video was intentionally written to, perhaps, maximize control margins while minimizing chance of success.
Fantastic video! Congratulations!!!
Amazing video! Thanksss
My CFI had me learn and practice turn backs in a 172. He called it the improbable turn' instead of the 'impossible turn.'
The cowards keep calling a Safe Turnback as an "Impossible Turn". Suckers repeating old lies. Pilots should not be such Liars...
Absolutely brilliant analysis and testing. Learned a lot from this.
Excellent presentation.
Thank you for the video.
Good video. Having been in this situation twice (albeit not on the climbout), I think it's worth mentioning that there's an enormous difference in performance between an engine at idle and an engine that is totally stopped. It's also interesting to try this manuever whilst at at a safe altitude and, if your aircraft is spin-allowable (and you're proficient at spin recovery and you are at a recoverable altitude), keep tightening the turn until entry. It's a bit of an eye opener.
Yeah. Their reply made no sense.
The engine cannot be producing thrust and having drag from windmilling at the same time.
What it is is that the engine idling REDUCES the drag from windmilling. If you look at what an aircraft engine idles at on the ground (600-800 RPM) vs what it does in the air at glide speed (1000-1200 RPM) that extra RPM is from drag... where in an engine off glide ALL of the RPM is from glide.
Not a pilot, but I would have thought that a stationary prop is going to create significant drag, even if feathered.
@@axelBr1 Negligible compared to a windmilling prop.
@@jameslipman8165 Ooops, I made a mistake in my wording; the prop can only be stationary if feathered, otherwise it will be windmilling, and obviously creating aerodynamic drag, and cranking the engine, which will require energy.
@@axelBr1 Most piston single props cannot be feathered. The range of pitch is limited to few degrees from 'fine' (commonly for takeoff) to 'coarse' (commonly for cruise). Most governors will send the prop to full fine with a loss of oil pressure, which is not ideal in an engine failure situation since that is the configuration that creates most drag. But there you go.
This seems a dangerous test.
Would love to see more of these demonstration videos...
Great video, guys! Thank you!
Thanks for watching and commenting.
I'm surprised by the assertion that performance at idle and with the engine failed would be similar. I watched a video with Doug Rosendaal the other day in which he suggested that the sink rate if you cut the mixture in a 172 in a 45 degree turn was 700-900 ft/minute as compared to 500-600 ft/minute if you merely cut the throttle. It seems like a big assumption to be making.
Here's the video I mentioned: ua-cam.com/video/7DUE8Eh5IUY/v-deo.html
Going through the comments to see any about the effect of having the engine idling. Even if the drag of the prop turning cancelled out the idle power of the engine, a stationary prop, even if feathered is still going to create drag.
I agree, I wish they would have linked their sources to that claim. If wrong, it very well could get people killed.
Hi, I agree the assertion that idle vs windmilling performance is similar, is wrong. Re the other video you linked to, the sink rate quoted is very dubious, being too low in both cases. There is no way that guy has been getting 5-600fpm in a 172 at “medium density altitude and 45 deg banked turn”. The glide performance is in the AFM so we can check it. The 172 glide ratio is 9.1:1 which gives 720fpm (sea level, best glide, windmilling prop, wings level). There is no way, particularly from a higher DA, he has been rolling-in to a 45 deg bank, and by simply keeping the engine at idle, has been able to peg the sink rate at the claimed 5-600fpm.
Richard you do a great job with these videos. AOPA members are lucky to have you making aviation safe and fun for all of us.
Very kind, thanks. We have a great small group of videographers and writers that are really the one's that do the exceptional work. I feel lucky to be here!
Great work! As a 12,000-hour airline guy that only flys GA occasionally, you have convinced me. Thanks for sharing
Licenced pilot here .
I second what many have said here in the sense that "this is a very complicated procedure". I also agree that it will have eyebrows-raising from FAA/Transport Canada since it's preached all-around that "engine failure on roll and below 1000', land straight ahead". Why? Think about it -- logically it makes sense and the average GA pilot taking his friends up for a flight isn't going to turn to them and say "I wanna try something I saw on Air Safety Institute" (at least, I'd like to believe they wouldn't).
This video presented near-perfect meteorological conditions and also professional pilots in a very organized environment. Your typical emergency will almost never happen in near-perfect conditions. During my flight training, with an CFI on board, he simulated an engine failure abeam the 1000' marker while we were on downwind. That day is still engraved in my mind just how many aspects change during flight and yet we were still in a very controlled environment. To attempt this
THIS VIDEO CANNOT BE MEANT OR TAKEN SERIOUSLY!!!!
It is much more risky for every pilot at the end and a shame for Air Safety Institute to have published such one!
So you say you cannot do 40-45 degree turns at say 700-800 agl because you will make many student pilot errors and crash. Well said. Now tell that to all your family and friends. They will say.. WTF. You are so dam fake or fragile?? You are dam dangerous. And for your info. I did 45 degree turns at 600 agl, on a windy area on pipers at 5-6 hours only. 17 years old. 1969. That precise Ground ref Maneuvering saved my life late on when had to them on emergencies and GRM with passengers. Jay Vega. Retired CFI. Bush Pilots, aerobatics, 5 kinds of EFATO. 11 emergencies.
That seemed like a shockingly dangerous test to perform despite the engine still being available. I have a lot of admiration for your dedication to safety.
^ this man has a point
Great video. Thanks to everyone!
Thank you for the science and demonstration.
This is reckless. First soloed in 1977, the AOPA would never have promoted this type of reckless maneuver. 300 AGL, 1000 AGL ?? How about a safer AGL to practice ??
Yep better to hit anything ahead flat and horizontal with some control than anything behind you, inverted...out of control.
Eh... I fly out of KMYF in the middle of San Diego and there's no good options ahead. Tough judgement call, but I think at 600 AGL (in a C172) I'd attempt a turnback and put it anywhere on the airport grounds.
@@brians2808 and @ 300? it could happen
@@keepitreal6487 yeah, might be hosed. I mean maybe on the nearby freeway but it’s often quite busy, perhaps a parking lot but also busy
@@brians2808 600’ is my cutoff for a 172 in optimal conditions. My CFI and I demonstrated it more than once during training. I just hope it never happens on a really hot day with full fuel and a couple passengers. That said, you know that’s when it’ll happen.
There are some airports that have no option of going straight without plowing into some type of structure. Some people in the comments must have not flown out of an airport with literally no good option going straight ahead after takeoff.
Im just a woman not at all involved in planes or flying. But ever since i was a child making elaborate paper plane rescue planes i had a interest in the who, what where, when and whats of plane crashes. Since 2015 ive warched most cvrs and analytics of world wide crashes. Not until now did i find such a high quality channel explaining things to lsymen. It is valuable. I heard if it because another channel gave a nod to Richard. Rest Richard youve saved many lives.
My understanding is:
latest thinking is to use a 45° bank angle and fly at “DMMS“ (Defined Minimum Maneuvering Speed: VSO times 1.404)
Many years ago I pulled off a turn-back with Cessna TU206 after the TSIO-520 swallowed a valve. 5,000’ runway, straight out departure, failed at 1,000’ A bit of residual power . . . just enough to taxi back to the ramp with full throttle. Had practiced the scenario not too long prior. It worked but . . . best choice would’ve been an off airport landing within maybe 90° of original runway heading.
Every takeoff scenario is different. Pilot, airplane, runway length, DA, departure terrain, wind . . . Ya gotta have a plan before the start of each takeoff roll.
I know (knew) a CFI who swore you could do it at 200 feet AGL. He even trained his primary students this way. A lot of people - very experienced pilots and CFIs - told him he was nuts. He died after an engine failure on takeoff in a 206, stall-spin trying to get back.
That is impossible under most circunstances, Only with good power and turn have to be over 60 degrees to avoid getting too far out to the side. You will stall trying that. I practice them from 400 agl with power. The Teardrop Kind, not the ? Question Mark Kind. Double that altitude. With mild winds. with some power and some flaps due it is like a slow flight turn at around Vfinal speed.
Wasn’t the accident aircraft returning to the parallel runway? That’s a 180 degree turn and it didn’t make it.
They also don't consider the cross wind effect that increases required minimum airspeed
That Bonanza pilot did a huge error. You cannot turnback from under 700 agl with no power on those. He tried from around 250 agl only. They said that clearly not to do it like that.
@@morthomer5804 WTF..they did consider that..
YES, AOPA got even the NTSB report wrong, the situation:
If you have a parallel runway, just a 180 to the other one might work, but teaching us for a 270 (or 360 degree) to the same - might kill you.
TAKE-OFF briefing!!! And AOPA does not talk about: if I evaluate all the options - BTW: with considering the wind!!! (a huge factor) - I could decide
what my "safe turn-back altitude" is.
Just showing us, some guys can make it, some not, on unknown conditions (what was the wind???) and telling us 45deg bank is the "right one" - what a false message is provided?
@@torstenjaekel1687 Are you sure of that?? i have to see the video again. I think AOPA did a great video about a maneuver that can save your life not only on EFATO but on Flyover GRM Turnbacks, short approaches, and Box Canyon Turnbacks. 4 places where 180 or 270 deg. question mark practices can make you do the right control imputs and avoid accidents on those maneuvers.
Sorry for the wimps that cannot do it even if they can if they have more skills or more valor..
According to the gopro visuals of the Bonanza turns, it was not at a 46 degree bank, more like a 30. I did a forced turn back years ago in a loaded Cherokee 6 with a power loss. My initial turn was probably close to 60 degrees that day. I had many hours in that 6 flying 2 to 3 hours daily mostly to ranch strips and was totally comfortable in it. I think that makes a huge difference.
I had to watch this video again to rest assured Mr. McSpadden knew the possibilities of returning as a real no option scenario. It truly breaks my heart knowing he would have most likely been trying to not persuade this life losing maneuver. I watch these videos over and over, so these will be first thought should I be in any of these real critical moments. I pray for his family, as well as the other gentleman's family. Tragedy can happen at anytime, but I feel Mr. McSpadden did his absolute very best to prevent this accident. I am thankful to be a part of this wonderful organization and pray for all pilots to reflect on prepare, practice, and tell how wonderful the flight was on their safe return home. Godspeed Richard McSpadden on your flight West.
I do not agree with the masses of comments calling this reckless. But the flight test procedure fails to yield any useful result. Ok, there is a minimum height loss for a 360, but what you really need is a method that can be applied in general to determine if you can make it back to the runway on any given departure. The results of this video do not answer that question. It is merely an observation of what happened in a handful of special cases. Also, to say - "the light thrust you might receive at idle power is somewhat offset by the drag from the moving propeller" - is an oxymoron. The total reaction of the prop will either result in thrust or drag - it will not be one offset by the other. Thumbs down.
John Doe ...are you asking what forces I consider re windmilling drag?
@John Doe ok. The force I am considering is the total reaction of each blade having a component that is, by definition, either thrust or drag. But it is not a little idle thrust offset by prop drag - which is what they said.
i have an engine failure on every take off... certainly sharpens you up ... c'mon guys ...go gliding once in a while...
I have practiced this many times in my Citabria. Barry Schiff had a great article on how to practice. It was very similar to the ones mentioned here. Especially why you should count to 3 before performing the turn-back.
Great info, well done.
It might be a good habit to offset your climb-out heading 20° or so to the right from the runway heading to give a less acute turn back angle. (for clockwise rotating props)
Ok... We need to start teaching to offset immediately clearing obstacles and no runway remaining and to then begin the crosswind leg, yes, very low. Flying the runway centerline on upwind makes the turn back further impossible and uses more energy - make your turns while engine power is still there! Glider pilots using self launch immediately offset the runway so you don't have to make a 270° turn back, 180° to face the runway heading, 45° to turn towards the runway, and then 45° to align it again.
I believe we are all flying FAR too wide of patterns and should not by flying upwind with the runway behind us, THE worst place it can be in a power loss. If you turn cross wind after no runway remaining, and downwind inside of glide to the runway: you have a far better chance.
Furthermore: turns should NOT be made at best glide! Best glide while facing anywhere but AWAY from the runway is sending you FURTHER from it while losing PRECIOUS altitude and energy! I humbly suggest you guys do some rope break maneuvers in a glider. I fully understand gliders are a different animal entirely, but they teach the turn back maneuver in a completely different fashion. MINIMUM SINK SPEED (not published, you must determine it yourself) must be flown until a suitable landing place has been selected AND in your windshield, IE in front of you. THEN you accelerate to best glide to reach it. Turning at 100kts in that heavy beast is never going to be possible, especially if you fly the upwind the entire time. Turn at 500' and see what happens to your turn back! You HAVE to fly min sink for a turn, NOT best glide, until you have turned TOWARDS the runway. You ate up ALL of your energy flying away from the runway. I will not be renting a Bonanza to try this out, but I'd be totally fine flying up to you to do these maneuvers at altitude and determine minimum sink speed in a turn and when straight ahead, and how to fly a turn back at low altitude and how we SHOULD be flying a pattern.
Flying with the runway immediately behind you on upwind is making the impossible turn further impossible. Offset (let the wind drift you 500-1000') once obstacles permit so you only have to make a 180° turn back, not a 270° (180+45+45). Then you turn into the wind back to the runway in your windshield, not a bunch of parked airplanes lol You'll be SHOCKED at the altitude lost from the additional 45+45 turns. Make your turns while you still have power!
These aren’t gliders, and on a hot, high, and humid day with no wind it won’t matter what you do... you aren’t making it back, period.
@@Bartonovich52 I said exactly that I recognize these aren't gliders. All the reason to optimize your glide by making your turns when your engine... Is running. Not when it's a horrible form of a glider. 🤷♂️
If you fly a 1000' upwind and have an engine failure: you aren't making it back in many airplanes. If you do a 500' upwind you have a shot in most aircraft. 90° less of a turn to make to return.
Think of the climb gradient vs glide angle lol it makes zero sense to fly away from a landable location (IE the runway you just took off from) and then hope to glide back at a worse glide ratio.
@@Bartonovich52 You missed the entire point of everything he said. And then you made no point whatsoever.
Very well said. Your comment won't get the attention it deserves here as it ruffles too many feathers, but you are 100% correct. I'm afraid conventional wisdom (as demonstrated in this video) is akin to ski jumpers in the 1980s flapping their arms while in the air because that's simple "how everyone else does it" while serving no purpose. In fact, quite the opposite
@David David to be fair - when I taught primary in aircraft I taught exactly everything they demonstrated in this video. It was only because I was taught it and demonstrated it myself as a student. It wasn't until last year when I fell in love with gliders and bumped into a 4000hr glider pilot who pointed this concept out, and then we did it. I was blown away.
When you look at most self launching gliders the flight path they take (most common in Europe, and I own one in the USA) - the pattern keeps them in tight and in glide of the airfield. They intentionally let it drift on initial climb if a crosswind is present, and turn crosswind almost immediately. And downwind likely less than 500'. This is because motorgliders have horrendous climb gradients, worse than their glide with the engine out. So an engine failure = into the trees if you don't stay in glide angle and distance of the runway. Basically they perform similar to a Cessna 150.
Excellent video!! Thank you!! I even got nervous watching as the Super Cub was gliding back on the stall warning! Thanks for doing this for us AOPA!
The stall warning sounds 5 to 10 kts above stall speed, there is some margin...
Turnback is possible for some pilots, in some aircraft, in some conditions.
In other words turnback is possible if you know it's coming and you can choose the airplane and weather conditions ahead of time.
Is it possible to know all of the qualifiers are present, that you are the sort of pilot who can pull it off, you are in an airplane to pull it off, and weather conditions will allow it to be pulled off.
Not only do you need to answer all three questions with a "yes" with very little time to consider them, you need to correctly answer all them. If in a real emergency you answer the first question with a yes, you are probably not going to be correct.
Lifesaving information.
Excellent clip, that makes it clear by demonstration; this is really convincing data to look at by students and professionals.
I agree with all the comments that this should not be tried or practiced at low altitudes. Air safety institute should reconsider these kinds of videos. They encourage unsafe practices and are not what this organization should be about.
The impossible turn CANNOT be attempted at higher altitudes, why? Because that is not an impossible turn. In real life, the definition of an impossible turn is low and slow and too far from the runway.
@@speedomars3869 you are wrong. You can simulate everything that was done at higher altitudes using a safe altitude as a simulated ground level.
@@donwd007 Wrong. Sure you can practice at a "safe" altitude but there is a critical element that CANNOT be overcome...advance knowledge that you will attempt the turn. Unlike standard maneuver and practice, the impossible turn can ONLY be simulated if you DO NOT KNOW you are going to make the turn. Dozens of factors are at play and all of them have to be precisely determined and calculated and executed in a precise way. Speed, altitude, distance from runway, flap and prop configuration, cutoff fuel, cutoff mags, turn 180 degrees that will rapidly increase load factors bringin on the stall ALL without engine power. One also must FIGHT the impulse to keep the nose level or high as the stall progresses thus worsening the stall. IN other words, one must lower the nose close to the ground despite watching the plane hit the ground short of the runway.
The impossible turn cannot be effectively practiced and prepared for and anyone who assumes they can make the turn, if faced with the above factors have only incorporated a deadly scenario into their assumptions. Most CFIs correctly teach that if you lose power or control on takeoff plan a STRAIGHT AHEAD crash scenario. And that is the responsible thing to teach.
You are right, but you sure don’t have to paralice all those things at a low altitude. There is no way to practice how you will really react in an emergency, but if you practice what to do, then the hope is you do what you practiced at that time.
This is great info to have !
I’m of the school of “no turn back”. Keep ahead and look for field, road, beach, lake, or whatever. But at the end of the day… do whatever you have to do to make it out alive.