The Experimental Aircraft Association has formed a team to explore ways of improving aviation safety by focusing on responses to the often-tragic 180° turn back to the runway following engine failure on takeoff — often call the Impossible Turn by pilots.
This group, led by Charlie Precourt, vice chairman of the EAA board, and Sean Elliott, EAA’s vice president of advocacy and safety, also includes representatives from the flight instruction and flight test communities, academia, data analysis experts, and others.
The group’s primary focus areas include:
- Reacting to an engine failure at takeoff
- Stall awareness, recognition, and prevention after loss of power in a takeoff attitude, and recovery
- Teaching pilots proper judgment in this scenario, the ability of different types of aircraft to perform such a maneuver, and whether a turn-back is the appropriate response.
EAA’s action followed a National Transportation Safety Board report that indicates engine failure on takeoff/climb-out was a significant contributor to GA accidents. The group will study how to incorporate these piloting skills in basic private and sport pilot certification, as well as additional training programs, EAA officials noted.
EAA’s team is also working collaboratively with the FAA and will submit the group’s recommendations to the agency.
I went thru all this with my instructor at my last biannual recently in my Cessna 150. we went up high and practiced the 360 turns at engine idle to figure out the altitude loss and practice the actual maneuver, a 45° bank turn at about 70 mph. We did this probably 7 times to get it down. I figured out to put in a lot of elevator trim at the beginning and it was much easier after that. Even at 400 AGL, I was easily able to make it back to the runway even with a tailwind. On a calm day, it was be even easier. I think I could even do it from 350 AGL if the conditions were favorable. I feel more confident after actually practicing it. If I had to do it past a certain altitude and reacted fast enough, I would be more confident and less panicky. I’m glad we did it. Each airplane would be so much different. A Bonanza or Mooney would have a much tougher time and would need more altitude from a starting point. Either way, it would be good to practice it for the pilot.
My husband and I purchased a 1980 Mooney M20J in July 2020. As first-time owners, wanted to ensure we took all the “right” steps, having a pre-purchase inspection and a fresh annual prior to taking delivery. The airplane had been hangared and looked great. The engine had under 800 hours SMOH. However, it had sat for extended periods, and even though we had the logbooks, we had not been schooled on how to spot problems.
This came to bear in a big way when I, a barely 200-hour pilot now in IFR training, was flying touch-and-goes, when my engine, without warning, cut out completely, 200 ft up on my second lap. Thankfully, my instructor had taught me well how to manage these things instinctively. As in, don’t continue climbing lest you stall into the ground. That stall happens quickly in Mooney; you have only a matter of seconds to make the right decision. In fact, the word “decision” has no time to enter the picture. Your actions must be by instinct. I was able to land softly on remaining runway, after slipping her down, calling ATC at the same time so they could abort the C-172 they had just cleared for departure.
After replacing the mag and having the valve guides reamed, we were cleared to fly. Twelve hours later, the engine faltered, again on takeoff, but at about 400 ft. My instructor was with me this time. I told him to take the controls while I called ATC. This one was not as dramatic as the first but bad enough, and once again able to land without incident, thanks to our 8000′ runway at KILM.
Back to the shop, and after replacing the prop governor and entire fuel injection system, we were once again cleared. After several blissful flights, I was beginning my IFR check ride, examiner in the right seat, and she acted up again, this time thankfully while still on the ground holding short. It was the spark plugs. They had not been replaced since 2003, after 426 hours (their life limit is 300 hours).
This learning experience has taught me that older powerplants and especially their supporting systems suffer horribly if allowed to sit for extended periods. While we did what we thought necessary to ensure a sound aircraft would be delivered to us, we had not been educated on how to spot issues. This would have enabled us to solve potential problems before they became emergencies.
I think that knowing your airplane, its history, performance, and limitations, is an absolute must. Also, practicing engine-out on takeoff scenarios is necessary. These simulations can be done at altitude. This needs to be drilled often and briefed before every takeoff; developing these good habits could form the instincts that save your life.
I think that you should find another A&P, IA
Having had two engine failures in asel,
instantaneous anything is not realistic.
Shock factor, whaaaaa??? OMG!, etc… is going to take a couple seconds..probably closer to 15 seconds or so IF the training was effective.
Conducting studies where the pilot knows
ahead of time of impending failure is just not going to give a realistic assessment of the real world validity of the maneuver.
The decision, as to whether to turn back, or not, is so aircraft, ambient condition and proficiency dependent, no rule could possibly fit all circumstance. I believe in increasing your chances of success by drifting downwind on takeoff, and I wrote an article about that for the AOPA Magazine. The article was called ‘A Better Return Policy’, and it explained some of the physics involved. Two things I hope everyone can agree upon: The rule to always proceed straight ahead, after an engine failure on takeoff, must be at least as deserving of critique as any option which a thoughtful and experienced pilot might otherwise choose. And second, you should not argue with success. It is foolish to second guess a pilot who ends up saving himself, his passengers and his plane. Would any of you actually stand to criticize a pilot who landed safely, because he didn’t follow an arbitrary convention?
Once the decision has been made (instantaneously) that a turnback is the only option then the challenge becomes how? Turn and glide or roll and pull – there’s a lot of air between those two extremes and that is always going to be the challenge to teach. I think you can teach the instantaneous reaction so that it becomes rote, but after that is where the difficulty usually hides. BTDT and didn’t bend anything, but don’t want that ride again.
OOPS. It was 3 attempts, not 4….same results [ minus 1 try ].
The AOPA did a set of test flights on 4 different aircraft recently. 2 could make it 4 of 4 times. 1 made it 3 of 4 times and 1 failed 4 of 4 times, a Bonanza.
AOPA Air Safety Inst., June 4, 2021
What were the 2 airplanes that made it 4 of 4? I bet one was a c172. I was trained by an instructor that teaches how to do it. Going back to York PA for the training in the next couple of weeks .
The Cessna 172 and the Super Cub had no problems from 600 ft.
The RV4 made it 2 of 3 times.
The A36 Bonanza didn’t get even close; high glide speed vs Vy, and a resulting large turn radius. It couldn’t make it back regardless of altitude.