On Wednesday, May 15, 2019, the National Association of Flight Instructors‘ MentorLIVE broadcast will feature Captain Brian Schiff covering the hotly debated, controversial topic of returning to the departure runway following an engine failure soon after takeoff.
His live presentation, “The Possible Turn — Engine Failure After Takeoff in Single-Engine Airplanes,” will be streamed online beginning at 8 p.m. EST.
Since the early days of aviation, turning around to land on the departure runway has been called “the impossible turn.” Schiff will offer a convincing argument to the contrary, identifying times when it is indeed safer to turn back to the runway.
“A turn back to the airport following an engine failure shortly after takeoff is a risky maneuver, but there are times when it might be the least hazardous option,” he says. “The odds of successfully completing one, if needed, are dramatically improved with forethought and preparation.”
Schiff includes insight about the September 2018 Advisory Circular 61-83J that states matter-of-factly that “flight instructors should demonstrate and teach trainees when and how to make a safe 180° turn back to the field following an engine failure.”
The content is based to a large extent on his father, Barry Schiff’s, decades of study and research involving this subject and that the FAA has validated in its Advisory Circular.
“The turnback maneuver belongs in the survival kit of every proficient pilot, to be used only when it would be more hazardous not to use it,” Barry Schiff says.
Highlights of the broadcast include:
- A discussion of the principles involved in returning to the airport safely;
- Why the only accidents tracked are not successful turnarounds; and
- Illustrations of how the turn can be safely executed.
The presentation qualifies for a Master phase WINGS credit and will be archived on FAASafety.gov for future viewing. To register for the live presentation, go to MentorLive.site/program/20.html.
Brian Schiff, a captain for a major U.S. airline, has more than 20,000 hours. He is type-rated on the Airbus A320, the Boeing 727, 757, and 767, the DC-9 (MD-80), CL-65, LR-JET, and Gulfstream V. Schiff has deep roots in general aviation and has flown a wide variety of aircraft. He also holds several flight instructor ratings.
MentorLIVE is NAFI’s monthly, live-streaming broadcast airing the third Wednesday of every month at 8 p.m. Eastern. The programs feature subject matter experts from many aspects of the flight instruction industry to help CFIs be more successful in their training endeavors. Many of these presentations are WINGS-approved credits and are available to all CFIs and aviators.
If you would like to see what some glider pilots are taught, go here…..
https://www.ssa.org/webinar/Takeoff%20Dangers%20and%20How%20to%20Avoid%20Them.mp4
all the comments about: Training FIRST,. practice AT Altitude first, recent experience, knowing conditions and that machine’s performance are pertinent.
I believe all pilots should be taught to audiblize their emergency alternates before rolling to accelerate in any flight machine. And continuing to call them out during climb until achieving a normal gliding pattern to return. This may not be standard at tower controlled fields, but certainly IS pilot discretion elsewhere. Allowing ASEL machinery to fly Boeing patterns on arrival and departure is bad business.
I have a question… with an engine out does your nose down attitude need to be a lot steeper than normal. And if so could that be why so many pilots stall when trying to make the (impossible turn)
The pitch attitude of your aircraft (nose above the horizon) is a combination of angle of attack and angle of your glide path. At engine out your glide path is sloped down. Consequently you cannot maintain the pitch attitude of horizontal flying but you need to lower the nose.
Agree with Viktor. The pitch is similar to most power-off glides. Most likely in many unsuccessful attempts, the pilot panics, rolls into a substantial bank, and then tries to force or pull the nose back toward the runway with back pressure. But what does that back pressure really do? Increases angle of attack resulting in stall and loss of control. In some cases, possibly, the pitch is never lowered from the climbout but actually goes higher. A full training experience following the guidelines in AC 61-83J should be followed before attempting a turnback. Have you had a chance to read paragraph A.11.4 in that AC (the link is in the report above)?
Is it possible? Maybe, but I’m concerned that talk like this will encourage a pilot to attempt it when they shouldn’t. I suspect that more pilots die trying to return than those that land straight ahead.
It isn’t impossible. It has been done many times and to call it impossible is a disservice to pilots.
I agree to Matt. It cane be done. But every time a pilot gets killed he tried something which he never tried before. My advice: Practice such a maneuver at a safe altitude, determine which conditions are favoring a positive outcome and be prepared for the emergency. How the “impossible turn” is possible you may read in the book PERFECT PILOTING made easy.
We experienced an “impossible turn” fatal accident at our glider club a few years ago. We were using the winch to launch the glider, in which the winch pulls in the rope attached to the glider’s nose at high speed while the pilot climbs at a 45 degree angle. Just before a point directly over the winch the pilot releases and glides away to find lift. The preferred release altitude is about 1,000 feet.
Air temp at the desert gliderport was about 110 degrees F in the morning with little or no wind and the combined weight of the pilot and passenger was as much as 400 lbs., leading to a potential density altitude problem. The pilot was very experienced with over 1,000 hours in gliders.
At less than 100 ft. altitude and about 15 seconds after launch the glider unexpectedly released. The correct procedure if this happens in a winch launch is to instantly drop the nose, dive to the runway, level off and land. since the nose starts at about a 45 degree angle of attack, without that action the glider will stall immediately. There was plenty of runway available for such a landing in this instance.
In this case, the pilot started a right turn with nose high, literally, the “impossible turn.” The glider stalled, the right wing dropped and it spun in nose first after about 1.5 turns. Both pilot and passenger were killed instantly. No explanation was ever found as to why the pilot started the “impossible” turn, nor was the reason for the unexpected release ever identified.
Of course, this was a glider, not a power plane, and many factors determine stall and spin characteristics. Conditions like wind speed and direction, loading and air density change from one flight to another. In his 1940s book, Stick and Rudder, Wolfgang Langsweische describes many of these conditions and how they effect stall and spin characteristics. This is a useful text because it was written in plain language for military pilot trainees who never had a course in aerodynamics.
Since I witnessed the consequences of one “impossible turn,” I agree that the turn is not necessarily impossible. That being said, any pilot who might choose to make that turn must carefully study all of the relevant factors, identify all conditions on the day of the flight and know the precise characteristics of the airplane before trying this maneuver.
Importantly, almost no one survives a nose-in incident. It may be better to land on the fuselage in a field of rocks than to go in nose first.
Thanks for the opportunity to hear about this important issue!
Have taught emergency techniques for 50 years, and I include full engine-off, prop stopped “emergencies” all the way to landings. I have always pounded into my students, “Engine Failure—500′ or less, max 45-degree turn, and ONLY if there is a runway within that 45 Degrees. 750′–90Degree turn permissible, WITH PREVIOUS CRITERIA.” 1,000′ AT LEAST, and clear approach, you CAN turn back, but not recommended. Only if there is only trees in front of you.
I have had 13 engine failures, 3 full off-airport emergencies all the way to landings. Only time I ever bent a plane was landing my Mustang II (hottest little homebuilt ever)(plugged fuel tank vent line) in a mountain meadow, right at dark. with the failure at 1,200’AGL. Between 10′ high piles of rocks in the very short field, just before stopping without damage, there was dis liddle-biddy ditch about 5″ deep. Tore the gear off. No bruises.
I have been flying for 40 years and have often practiced the 180 turn at altitude. My practice established that I need 750 feet to get turned around and realigned with the runway in my 195. But not until I practiced using a simulator did I realize the length of runway made a big difference on the successful 180 turn. In short, I found a minimum altitude over the departure end of the runway is required in addition to the minimum turnaround altitude. In my case it it is 300 feet. Less than that and I can not get back to the runway. The best I can do at my home airport with a 3600 foot runway is 150 feet so that would be an impossible turn for me.
Very similar to my experience. At Hartford-Brainard KHFD did many to the 4400′ runway from 500 ft easily in a C172 (again this is with planning, practice, and proficiency). Then tried one to the 2300′ runway and the runway was too far away. I always did a Vy climbout. Realized that for shorter runways, there could be a significant advantage to always flying a Vx climbout whether there are obstacles or not just to hopefully get to the minimum turn-around altitude within gliding distance to the runway.
The possible turn is quite often but not always possible. There are many different factors to consider. Check ist out with your airplane and practice. Never do anything in an emergency what you never have done before.
Read the chapter “The Impossible Turn” in the book “PERFECT PILOTING made easy”.
We covered this with Rod Machado over a year ago (cautiously due to FAA policy on straight ahead only). This maneuver seems to be gaining traction. As stated above, it *must* be analyzed and parameters for success decided *before* take-off. More here: https://youtu.be/4ackVNFct4I
Back when I was flying had 3 engine failures and all were completed successfully following the impossible turn.
I was flying a Debonair S#CD2 with an IO470N, 260 HP, fuel injected engine.
The first failure was on nearly reaching pattern altitude on departure I lost oil pressure. I immediately dropped the nose and rolled left keeping the nose down to gain air speed. Best glide is 120 MPH while normal final CAS is 80MPH (old airplane) I kept the gear up until the runway was made. The second was a repeat of the first. The last was much like the first with a healthy tail wind. The new oil filter mod (originally the engine only had a screen) blew a gasket. This time I had made pattern altitude so I glided around the pattern and landed (Took off on 24 and landed on 24 rather than 6) The most difficult part was getting slowed down.
NOTE: I had practiced this maneuver many times and knew the minimum turn-back altitude as well as ROD Vs ground speed. IF I hadn’t made the minimum required altitude there was an expressway within gliding distance straight ahead. The problem with that was an invisible over pass. All of those turn backs were done after dark. If it was still down, getting the gear up soon was critical to the best glide speed and distance.
These all happened around 2005, give or take a year or two.
I remember when this subject came up with a mathematician that said it was possible. However there are too many variables. He claimed he proved it with his students on a computer. Yeah right, first of all when it happens there is the Oh Sh_t, what happened and disbelief. That alone burns valuable time. On a computer and in practice you KNOW you are going to have a failure and are all set to react. I had a gas cap come off one time at about 300 ft. and still had the gear down. When I went to turn around I was surprised that it took full power to slow the descent in a 40 deg. turn. I lost 5 gallons of fuel but had already changed tanks for safety. Notice I said slow the descent. The only redeeming statement that I saw in this idea of turning around was that if the danger of landing straight ahead or at a 45deg. angle from departure posed much more of a danger to your life than attempting to turn around, then go ahead and try it. Basically, what do you have to lose?? but, isn’t that common sense ????????? And for the guy that put the airplane in knife edge flight, you must also believe in the tooth fairy. That configuration is a huge amount of drag and as a former aerobatic instructor, I don’ think its possible especially after having a conversation with your instructor. Bottom line, you guys do what you want, I know what I will shoot for.
The FAA’s stance on this subject officially changed in the Fall of 2018. The FAA understands there are circumstances where an aircraft can safely make a “Return to Field” and now wants flight instructors to be able to demonstrate and teach such a maneuver! (Refer to AC 61-83J A.11.4)
It MUST be stressed there are very specific protocols in teaching this type of maneuver and when you should and shouldn’t consider it. First, it should only be considered at airports that have no straight ahead option available. Second, the maneuver itself. Basically a 45 degree wing-over with a complete emphasis on pushing the nose over to maintain airspeed and practicing in the actual aircraft to determine what minimum altitude is required before the attempt is ever made. Third, you must then brief the it just before take-off that IF in the event of an engine failure AT the minimum altitude or higher, an attempt to return to the field would be executed.
Make no mistake about this. It is the most complex flight instructing that the FAA is asking CFI’s to consider and the reason they are keeping the conversation between CFI’s during a Flight Instructor Refresher Courses for now. The FAA is spending extra time in examining our lesson plan before approving it to be shown and discussed in our FIRC. I have been a proponent of Barry Schiff’s idea of this for almost 30 years. I talked to Barry on the phone just a few months ago and we both agreed the FAA’s change in stance on this topic is over-due, but again, if taught improperly or without the due diligence it deserves, the outcome may not be what we all hope for.
Kim Barnes
Chief Flight Instructor
Aviation Seminars
While a 45 deg turn, presumably to the Right, after liftoff may not be feasible in some cases, it should be possible to drift Right after liftoff so that you are no longer directly over the runway, making the 180 degree turn a lot easier to perform. Of course drifting either Right or Left may not be feasible for airports with parallel runways or severe noise restrictions, which happens to describe Torrance, CA, the airport where I got my Private license.
At our local airport a pilot in a Varieze had to make a 360 turn after takeoff when someone on the ground blew his prop to pieces with a shotgun blast. He not only made the runway but actually overshot, ending up in the grass overrun area. Remember, after that impossible turn you’ll likely be landing with a tailwind.
I hope the officials were able to determine who was responsible for the shotgun blast and throw the book at him/her.
Definitely interested in Brian’s presentation. I too have been experimenting and testing turnbacks for two decades, and our flight school has been effectively teaching them for 5 years, carefully recording data to compare results in varied single-engine aircraft at different weights and atmospheric conditions, the greatest of which is wind factor. While I completely agree that this turn is not impossible, I would say that it should only be attempted by a proficient pilot who knows the glide characteristics of the plane, has practiced this many times in order to not end up as another LOC statistic, and who has adopted the personal and professional discipline of briefing EVERY takeoff….to include a minimum altitude benchmark (below which a turnback WILL NOT be an option), the direction of turn for best wind advantage, speed to maintain, and the identification of other possible landing sites beyond the departure end of the runway. Under these well-thought, well-practiced, and predetermined conditions, I can say that turnbacks can be done successfully by PREPARED pilots! A recipe for disaster is attempting one for the first time on your own personal doomsday…so if you want to keep believing it’s “impossible” then just don’t ever go practice it, but the FAA is definitely on the right track by finally acknowledging that this maneuver should be in every pilot’s survival kit.
Always turn into the wind. A strong wind and it will be like pivoting over the runway. A turn downwind to return will move you a lot further to have to glide back into the wind. Also, you don’t have to make the runway – just a clear & flat area – the infield or a taxiway. Fire rescue will have a much quicker response if you are inside the fence. Fly power off 180s in the practice area until you determine how much altitude you lose in the turn. Then add a “Startle” margin – say 100’. Every time you Takeoff, know when you transition from a straight ahead engine failure to a turn back – and stick to your rule.
This is a maneuver that needs to be practiced and understood. The performance of the aircraft is important here, and the pilot has to know if the aircraft is capable of making the 180 back to the runway with the altitude and the distance available. The pilot’s ability to be precise in understanding the situation and making the quick decision to execute the maneuver is as important as being able to execute.
A successful 180 and landing in a high wing loading aircraft like a Marchetti might not be successful in some thing like a slippery Mooney, where the aircraft might float right off the end of the runway. An understanding of both the aircraft, the 180 turn procedure and the available runway is necessary, and some thought to that particular maneuver must be part of the take off planning. One procedure doesn’t fit all.
In my experience, I have had to do this twice, each time in an aircraft with very different engine out performance (one fast, with the glide ratio of a brick, the other, fast, but with the glide ratio of a low performance sail plane), and was successful both times. Luck was not as much of a factor as my training from a very smart instructor, situational awareness, knowledge of the aircraft’s performance envelop, and my own diligence in keeping up my emergency skills.
The answer is simple but airports and the FAA don’t prescribe to it. Do what glider pilots do. After liftoff, fly 45 degrees out, upwind. If you have the need for an emergency return then you will end perfectly aligned with the runway and pretty much at the threshold with the entire runway available. The downside is that takeoffs need to be spaced between downwind traffic. But, at less busy airports, it works and it could save a life.
Rich – CheckMate Aviation
This was an email to my buddies at Cleveland Soaring Society
Chardon Adventure
Once upon a time at Chardon, Ohio where Cleveland Soaring Society was managing the airport and enjoying a long pleasant stay at a wonderful grass airport, we had an exciting event. By good fortune, this event produced no damage or injuries. The good fortune was a Christmas Party at the Lithuanian Club in Cleveland. We were all temporary Lithuanians thanks to member Rimvidas (Ray to all) Cepulis. Someone, likely Steve Raab, had invited well known glider flight training writer,Tom Knauff as a guest speaker. He had everyone write questions regarding safety on small slips of paper which were collected and Tom responded with many excellent answers. I did not know what to write but since I was then also a tow pilot I wrote a tow pilot dilemma. I wrote, “ What does one do if there is an engine failure on tow at low altitude “ ? Part of Tom’s answer was embedded in my brain. He said if you have a towplane problem you can not do anything to help the glider pilot. He/she is on their own and the best thing you can do is let them know right away so they can deal with the glider part of the problem. I think he said, good luck on the rest. He may have said what Steve often said, “Do what you gotta do “.
A couple of years passed. A new engine had been installed in the Scout and we were operating normally. At Chardon, Ohio, which had a relatively short three thousand foot runway, we kept the fuel load light, enough fuel for ten tows. The Scout at that time had tanks with a seventy gallon capacity. It had been calculated, through experience, that we used a gallon and a half per tow. We would normally put a maximum of ten gallons in each tank and refilled after ten tows, thus remaining light.
I was towing and we were taking a passenger on a ride. As I recall the ride was a very attractive young lady so there were many volunteers among the commercial pilots, but it was Joni Whitten’s turn and she was not relinquishing that turn. The flight was normal until we were at about a hundred and fifty feet over the woods at the south end of the runway when the engine quit.
This is not something anyone wants to experience, including me, maybe especially me. Fortunately I instinctively and instantly put the nose down to prevent a stall. I need to stress instantly. When towing you are close to a stall and the glider drag will get you to stall speed very quickly.
Joni saw me disappear below her view, released and went into rope break mode. As I was sinking into the trees and looking ahead for a landing spot the remaining fuel sloshed forward to the fuel pickup and the engine started again… briefly. I saw I was not going to reach any forward landing site so I did that which is frowned upon. I did a forty-five degree banked turn, which was well above stall speed and headed back to the field quickly released the rope. As I was ninety degrees through the turn, the engine quit again but the turn sloshed more fuel into the pickup and I had another brief spurt of power. I made it back to land downwind at the field.
I looked in the mirror wondering “Oh my God what happened to Joni” and there to my great relief, was Joni on her final approach behind me. The engine again started and ran long enough to get me clear of the runway. It quit for a final time and I coasted to the gas pump. Joni had calmly flown a standard one eighty back to the field as well.
The passenger remarked that the flight was shorter than she expected and I believe was surprised that she got her money back. How is that for calmness and handling an emergency? The passenger was unaware. Until Joni learned what happened she said she wanted to kill me for releasing her. We had both released the rope almost simultaneously She assumed that since I made it back to the field I could not have had a power loss.
I do not know what was going on in Joni’s mind but it was likely similar to mine. I was operating in a mode that was likely put there by all my previous experience, instruction, listening to hangar tales, and finally Tom Knauff’s remark at the Christmas meeting. “ You can’t do anything for the glider, solve your own problem and let them solve theirs “. I can say I was in a different time mode, everything slowed down and I seemed to be an observer of the actions I was taking. Some of them must have been correct. It was interesting and I never want to do it again. I recall not having time to think the standard two word remark, oh! #%&*!
Several crucial learning points come to mind. Bad stuff can, and sometimes will happen. Do the necessary training to be prepared, it’s what takes over under duress. If you are tow pilot get the nose down in a hurry if power fails, you are close to stall with a lot of drag. You can’t wait for the plane to slow down normally.
Finally, the cause of the power failure was an assumption we made. We never checked to see if the new engine used the same amount of fuel per tow. This one used two gallons, not one and a half. We wanted to keep it light but not, that light. We almost learned the hard way.
You could be flying a different tow plane if we hadn’t been very lucky. I also wouldn’t have flown it long enough for Rich Freeman to later give me the nickname Frosty the Towman.
Joni reacted properly by instinctively releasing the tow rope as soon as she saw me disappear below the panel, and I would not, and should not, have made the turn back to the airport had the engine not restarted after already releasing my end of the towrope. The correct decision I made was to keep the aircraft above stall speed in the 45 degree banked turn and was flying it to wherever it was going, not spinning in.
THE POSSIBLE TURN
In the event of a complete engine failure on any given day, in any given aircraft, for any given pilot, for any given runway, for any given atmospheric conditions, for any given airspeed, there is an altitude above which a safe return to the departure runway is possible. Below that altitude, a safe outcome is impossible.
As you are betting your life on the success of such a manoeuvre, this is something that has to be practiced so that your reactions become instinctive. You also have to become so familiar with the glide characteristics of your aircraft that you become immediately cognizant when a successful outcome becomes untenable: finding yourself a quarter mile off the end of the runway at a 100 feet with 40 degrees of turn left to go with the horn blaring and the stick shaking is a little late to realize that the safe landing site you earlier ignored is now behind you and unreachable. And neither is the runway…
There is nothing wrong with exploring the capabilities of you and your aircraft as concerns EFATO and a possible return to the departure runway. However, there is a caveat to all this: change any of the variables listed in para one and you change the outcome. Practice makes perfect. (And add a fudge factor; actual engine failure will be a ‘no notice’ event and leave you ‘swimming’ in glue for a few seconds.)
PS The above comments apply to proficient pilots. The odds of a non-proficient pilot to actually pull off a successful “Possible Turn” dramatically increase. And not for the better.
Years back during a biannual flight review the instructor told me to fly down the runway at 500 feet. After we flew over the approach end of the runway he pulled the power off and said we had an engine failure to go ahead and land. I turned to him and asked since this is an emergency I can do whatever it takes to save my life? He shook his head yes. I put the Cherokee on knife-edge and used all the lift of the wings to do a 360 degree turn holding the nose up with rudder to gain some lift from the fuselage I was carefully watching the airspeed. I landed just beyond the numbers. The instructor told me to taxi in. I turned off the engine and he sat there for a while then said “I have been an instructor for many years and occasionally I demonstrate that it is not possible to make a 360 turn from 500 feet and here you just proved me wrong”… Please I do not recommend even trying this unless the pilot knows what they are for sure doing.
Lets see. You are at 500 feet and the instructor pulls the power and while you are at 500 feet with no power you have a discussion with the instructor “I turned to him and asked since this is an emergency I can do whatever it takes to save my life?” It normally takes 3 or 4 seconds to react then 5 seconds talking to the instructor so that’s almost 10 seconds with no power then you make a 360 degree at a 90 degree bank at less than 500 feet. That Cherokee has one hell of a glide ratio….GOOD JOB.
Did you do a 360 and get the heck out of there? 😉
Did you mean a 180?
And most importantly, the skill of the pilot….Above all else….
using the crosswind and a offset taxiway
can make a 180 turn happen
much less distance than
a 270 and a 90
or a 225 and a 45
It just depends on the performance of the plane. Have only had one engine failure on departure in 43 yeas of aviating. Fortunately was in my STOL aircraft at the time. After hearing a turn back to the runway called the “impossible turn” so many times, while my first reaction was to turn back, I then hesitated thinking “Impossible Turn”. Then quickly realized it wasn’t going to be even challenging in this aircraft, so turned back and landed. Had this been in my other plane, the turn back to the same runway would not have been possible, so the decision would have been to pick a place straight ahead.
The moral of the story is, you have to know the performance parameters of the aircraft you’re flying.
Agree with JS. I’ve done quite a few for training purposes. The guidelines in the AC are very thorough and consider pilot skill, airplane performance, and all other factors which could affect the outcome. Training follows standard procedures of explaining, demonstrating, and supervised student practice to develop the proper judgement of when it is feasible. I’ve had Brian’s presentation on my calendar since his father mentioned it in his monthly column.
No one can make an emphatic statement about the turn. Way too many variables such as fuel on board, passengers on board, AGL, winds, distance from runway etc. The reason we talk about the turn being impossible is not about it NEVER being possible, it’s about the statistical improbability of making the turn. The odds are the lowest of any maneuver and the most dangerous to try. So most should not plan for it, or attempt it.
Agree that all the variables change the scenario
If you just took off you had already made go decision about the ones for the airplane and have committed to the take off, you Are committed at this point to all these variables unless you start throwing passengers out.
You need to work with what you have …..
Turning into the cross wind
And planning to land on the taxi way that is shifted over by some amount is the least geometric distance you have to cover and is most likely not being used , unless you took off down wind
I have not heard the option expressed , it is valid for most ac
I would rather have on the grass at an airport landing vs unknown straight ahead