• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Maybe you can. Maybe you can’t.

By Jamie Beckett · July 6, 2021 ·

Imagine yourself in this situation: While in the pilot’s seat of a single engine piston powered airplane, the sound of your engine producing full power suddenly and unexpectedly rolls back to idle.

What to do? What to do?

If you’re on the downwind leg of a traffic pattern, you might tighten your pattern. If you’re at 8,000 feet AGL the silence will focus your attention, but you’ve got time to work through some causes and their possible solutions. If you’re well below pattern level, climbing out after departing the runway, this scenario is a whole different thing. It’s stressful. You’re playing for keeps on this roll of the dice and you know it.

A few weeks ago the Air Safety Institute released a video that deals with this exact situation. Titled “Reality Check: The Runway Behind You,” it’s an eye-opener.

We’re talking about the Impossible Turn.

Can you make it back to the runway or not? Some say yes. You just need to employ the proper technique and commit to it. Others say it’s a fallacy. The airplane simply loses too much altitude in the turn. Even considering the option is foolhardy.

With that debate in mind, the kids at the Aviation Safety Institute decided to put that exact question to the test. They took four different aircraft and simulated this most feared situation — an engine failure on climbout.

It’s common knowledge that a Super Cub, an RV-4, a C-172, and a Bonanza have very different flight characteristics. Yet when most of us discuss the Impossible Turn, we do it in a generic sense. Can you or can’t you? Will it or won’t it?

Context matters. Certainly, in this instance, it’s critical.

I won’t spoil the outcome for you. I’d rather you sought out the video to see for yourself. Anyone who invests the less than 10 minutes it takes to watch the video will not only come away with a better understanding of why they should — or shouldn’t — consider the Impossible Turn to be a part of their pilot skillset, they’ll know why.

Sometimes knowing why is more important knowing than what.

To the naysayers, or at least a good portion of the naysayers, the argument might well be that engine failures are so rare it’s not worth investing the time or energy to solve a problem that will probably never occur. Admittedly, engine failures are rare. It’s likely you will go through your entire flying career as a professional or a hobbyist without ever experiencing one. Then again, should your prop begin to wind down unexpectedly, that’s a really bad time to begin your first deliberations on the topic of how to deal with a full-blown emergency.

Engine failures are serious business. They tend to happen with little warning. The very nature of being airborne means any engine failure in flight falls somewhere between a significant inconvenience and a truly terrifying experience.

I’ve had two engine failures over the course of my career. One was a mysterious event that turned out as well as anyone could possibly hope for. The other was a self-induced problem rooted in ignorance that was thankfully uneventful.

My first engine failure was something of a mystery to me. I was acting as a CFI in a C-182, flying with a private pilot who was considering stepping up to an instrument rating. We were in the practice area, 10 or 12 miles east of our home airport, on the opposite side of a ridgeline that ran more or less north and south. The flight was going well, but something about the aircraft felt wrong to me. I can’t say what it was. I didn’t have the ability to articulate my concern then and I still don’t now. I just felt as if something wasn’t right.

I suggested we head back home, well before a normal lesson would have sent us back in that direction.

The short transition back to the pattern was uneventful, although my student was aware enough to question why we were cutting the lesson short. I was less than specific about my reasons, but she went along with my directives and took us home.

Something about the powerplant didn’t feel right to me. Maybe it was a vibration or maybe it was a sound. I’m not sure. But I knew I was uncomfortable about the flight continuing.

On downwind my student said something to the effect of “this doesn’t feel right.” I took the controls and agreed. It didn’t feel right, although I couldn’t put my finger on what “this” was.

I stayed in the game, as did my student. We flew the downwind, then base, then turned onto final. I carried a bit of power, preferring to be high and fast to low and slow. At the appropriate time I flared, and the engine gave out. Right there, five feet above the runway, my engine quit. I’ve often joked that my first engine failure happened in the best possible place at the best possible time. It was a no brainer. With an entire runway ahead of me and gravity working in my favor, we landed, taxied off the runway, and radioed in to the FBO to get a tug back to the hangar.

No problem.

Had that same failure happened half an hour earlier, on climbout, I’d have a very different story to tell, if I was here to tell it at all.

Thankfully, the good folks at the Air Safety Institute have now addressed that very issue in a thoughtful, responsible manner that just might help any one of us make a critical decision with actual knowledge rather than just a bucketful of hope, should the need ever arise.

Check it out. You’ll be glad you did.

About Jamie Beckett

Jamie Beckett is the AOPA Foundation’s High School Aero Club Liaison. A dedicated aviation advocate, you can reach him at: [email protected]

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. Ethan Hausler says

    July 7, 2021 at 6:08 pm

    With not a lot of info I’m going to say carb ice. Got a lot of time in a 182 and they can make ice on a bright sunny hot day, especially when you pull the power back.

  2. MICHAEL A. CROGNALE says

    July 7, 2021 at 9:01 am

    My one and only also occurred just at about that same spot. I was a student in a C152 with a CFI. As I was entering the flare I pulled the throttle to idle and the engine quit. I landed and was rolling out when the CFI told me to take it off at the intersection. When we stopped I was able to start it again and we taxied in normally. never did find out why.

  3. Greg C says

    July 7, 2021 at 7:16 am

    So Jamie, what caused your engine to quit 5 ft above the runway?

    • Jamie Beckett says

      July 7, 2021 at 7:59 am

      It was a mystery to me then, as it is now, Greg. I have no idea what caused the failure. We have fuel and the airplane had been running fine previously. It went into maintenance for a few days following our flight and came out running normally afterward. What they did to correct the problem wasn’t something I got into with them. To the best of my recollection I never flew that particular airplane again. Although, I may be wrong. It was 30 years ago, after all. Memories fade to a degree, and mine certainly has over the years.

      • Luke Kushner says

        July 7, 2021 at 11:24 am

        Is it possible that the mixture was pulled inadvertently?

  4. William+Hunt says

    July 7, 2021 at 5:19 am

    The impossible turn is done in gliders from early on in the context of a rope break on takeoff. In powered aircraft, I’ve practiced it at altitude in a 172 and an Archer. Both seem to lose about 700, maybe 800 ft in a 360. As a personal standard, I’ve basically decided that prior to when I’d turn crosswind, I will not consider turning back. Once established on crosswind, I may turn back, but the turn would be away from the runway so that the turn is more of a 270 deg turn that more or less lines up with the runway on final. It keeps everything up high.

    • gbigs says

      July 7, 2021 at 7:02 am

      Your analysis is more accurate and objective than many try to argue.

      A sailplane has a wing loading of about 1lb/sqft versus a Cessna 172 at about 14lb/sqft. The Lift/Drag ratio for a sailplane can be around 60:1 versus a Cessna 172 at 9:1. So turning back for a sailplane is always an option.

      But for piston planes? There is a good reason manufacturers do not put a table in the POH for turning back. The margins for reaction time (cut fuel, pitch prop for least drag, set flaps, resist lifting nose), then calculating variables altitude and distance and load factor and distance from the airfield are too complex and the margin for error too narrow to count on it as an emergency procedure. I really wish people would stop arguing about this…and train for straight ahead crash landings, or even better, have the option of a chute.

      • Dan Ver says

        July 7, 2021 at 3:26 pm

        I agree. And I also note that almost all demonstrated returns to the runway are done with the engine at idle. But a true “engine out” does not have that extra ~600 rpm thrust. Nor does it demonstrate the significant drag from a windmilling prop. The excellent Schiff, Jr demonstration recognized this and recommended adding a goodly margin of additional altitude to your best demonstrated turn pack. And let’s not forget the potential effects of wind strength and direction.

  5. JimH in CA says

    July 6, 2021 at 4:19 pm

    We hashed through 45 comments on this topic in the June 7 article.
    https://generalaviationnews.com/2021/06/07/the-impossible-turn-debate-continues/

    I did run some flight test as specified by commenter Les G. It’s a lot of math, but the flying results was unexpected, and was the same as the C172 in the video….and I’m far from an expert pilot.

    BTW, from the Nall report, the majoring to ‘engine failures’ was fuel starvation or exhaustion. Mechanical failures are very rare.

  6. Bruce Kalin says

    July 6, 2021 at 4:11 pm

    Watched that video and will watch again and again. Also will work more on emergency situations with my instructor. Thanks Jamie

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines