So, I pick up a copy of AOPA Pilot from April of 2011. There is an article in there by a guy name Barry Schiff, in which he makes the case for making the turn back to the airport if you lose an engine on t.o. His rational is that he made it once in real life. If he made it, by definition he was high enough. I was amazed that AOPA would print this article that could potentially kill people. Yeah he, a high time pilot, made it because he was high enough. Now a lowtime pilot that reads the article could possibly start the turn, because he read the article, too low to make it and die.

This is an example, along with lobbying against the 1500 mandate for second officers, of why I don't belong to that organization.

I had an engine out once in an L-4 early in the climb out. Dumped the nose and racked it around back to the grass next to the runway. Better than stuffing it in the trees. I agree though in that I question whether it should have been published. Too many fair weather pilots out there that let others tell them what to do instead of figuring out an airplane for themselves. I had the altitude and knew the airplane type well. It worked for me. Practice practice practice. Know what you and your airplane are capable of. Be ready to make a split second decision, because that's truly all the time you have to decide.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/april/technique.html

This is the article in question. I'm going to give Barry the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he simply wanted to analyze the mechanics of what exactly happens in the impossible turn, and show that it isn't always black or white. He prefaces the whole article with this:

Barry Schiff wrote:When unprepared for such an engine failure, it generally is best to land straight ahead (or somewhat right or left of the runway’s extended centerline). NTSB records are replete with accidents resulting from pilots attempting to turn around and land from too low an altitude. The most common result of trying to avoid ground contact before completing the turn is a stall and/or a spin into oblivion.

I think he understands though that his reader audience has a few more brain cells than to trust every scenario to that rule of thumb, and so goes on to explain the cause and effect of when the turn could be successful. Attempting the turn could have a greater chance of survival in some cases than landing straight ahead. Bottom line is that rigid thinking, or lack of any thought, is what kills. I don't think pilots reading this are simply fools who are going to trust and hope a few paragraphs-- this is the call to think about and practice these scenarios in your aircraft.

It's certainly not a good reason to discount an entire advocacy group, and I enjoyed the analysis. Now, if you're complaining about their mailings... then yeah, ooof. Sick of it.

I've recently stopped reading his blurb in AOPA. I personally can't stand his stuff and I feel as if he likes to hear himself talk (just my 2 cents) nonetheless I've never done the impossible turn based on that as of now I've never been presented with an engine failure on take off....yet.
That being said as mentioned above that each takeoff/airport presents itself with a different scenario given an engine failure. I figure its good to run that into your pre takeoff checklist (in your head)

There's a few places I fly out of where you would have nothing to lose by turning back (stall or apartments turning vs. stall or apartments straight ahead), so I thought it was interesting. While we're flaming AOPA, if they send me another stack of Christmas card samples I'm going to leave them a fiery bag of dogsh1t on their steps.

Nosedragger wrote:There's a few places I fly out of where you would have nothing to lose by turning back (stall or apartments turning vs. stall or apartments straight ahead), so I thought it was interesting. While we're flaming AOPA, if they send me another stack of Christmas card samples I'm going to leave them a fiery bag of dogsh1t on their steps.

And all this time I thought that the Christmas cards were the only GOOD thing coming in from those guys. Naturally I look forward to reading all the articles about turbine and jet equipment. If it don't cost over a million how could I be interested eh?

EB

I like the AOPA, I feel I get my moneys worth. They do as much as anyone to preserve our rights to fly.

As for the engine out on take off usually the pilots fault. Poor maintenance usually.

I know a guy who had a prop strike, checked the crank for straightness, put a different prop on, done. I won't fly in it. When the crank busts off he will say I don't know why that happened. I won't fly with guys who skimp on maintenance.

G'Day

OregonMaule wrote:I like the AOPA, I feel I get my moneys worth. They do as much as anyone to preserve our rights to fly.

As for the engine out on take off usually the pilots fault. Poor maintenance usually.

I know a guy who had a prop strike, checked the crank for straightness, put a different prop on, done. I won't fly in it. When the crank busts off he will say I don't know why that happened. I won't fly with guys who skimp on maintenance.

G'Day

A buddy of mine is currently wanting to do the same with a 150 he hit a fence and dirt with. Actually the 150 that i was partners in with him on, and the reason I got out before something like that happened. No its wrecked, and he just wants to put a prop on it and fly it because the crank checks out true. Never mind the engine shop is telling him to at least get it magnafluxed. I wont get in the plane if he doesn't get it done properly, and prefer to not get a plane with him at all unless its mine.
Thread drift and rant over. Sorry.

David

OregonMaule wrote:I like the AOPA, I feel I get my moneys worth. They do as much as anyone to preserve our rights to fly.

I subscribe to and read AOPA's "Aviation eBrief". It's a daily e-mail about news in the aviation world. Pretty good. And I support them because they are a consistent lobby for us.

Anyway, I read the article too. The point he made to me is to go practice that turn at various speeds and see how much altitude you need to get back around. Situational awareness you know? One should have an altitude in his head on takeoff below which a turn back to the runway is a losing proposition. It's a point Gump has made from time to time in other contexts here. If I can paraphrase; no instrument or other contrivance will substitute for that kind of native "feel" for the airplane. What will it do? Others have made the same point I'm sure.

EB

Headoutdaplane wrote:So, I pick up a copy of AOPA Pilot from April of 2011. There is an article in there by a guy name Barry Schiff, in which he makes the case for making the turn back to the airport if you lose an engine on t.o. His rational is that he made it once in real life. If he made it, by definition he was high enough. I was amazed that AOPA would print this article that could potentially kill people. Yeah he, a high time pilot, made it because he was high enough. Now a lowtime pilot that reads the article could possibly start the turn, because he read the article, too low to make it and die.

This is an example, along with lobbying against the 1500 mandate for second officers, of why I don't belong to that organization.

Yeah, it's always essential to emphasize that pilots are too stupid to actually read what the writer presents.

Almost NOTHING in aviation is black and white. As they say....never say never. Understanding the physics and the aerodynamics of what's needed to make the airplane perform is essential to safety and success.

And, I've flown with high time air taxi pilots who couldn't fly for shit, and pilots with less than 200 hours that could fly as well as anyone I ever met. Those WWII fighter pilots.....they first went into combat with less than 300 hours generally. Some didn't survive, but again, you cannot make generalized statements with any accuracy in this realm either. 1500 hours is a singularly meaningless benchmark in my opinion.

Mr. Schiff is pretty impressed with himself, but then again, he's done a few things with airplanes, and his understanding of things aeronautical is pretty impressive.

MTV

The 1500 is a benchmark nonetheless. The airlines have been putting 400 hour pilots in the right seat. 400 hour pilots have vary rarely made a decision for themselves. Their instructors made the decisions, and then their captains make the decisions, and the basics of flying are lost in the crush to learn ancillary subjects.

The ab initio lot say that it is the same as military training, this is just not true, the selection process is very stringent in the military, and the washout rate very high. These factors do not exist in civilian life, if you take enough loans out, or have the money you could make it through the program.

It will be more difficult to become an airline pilot, in the mid-eighties when I was starting out in this oh-so glamorous profession, unless you were a female, the airlines wouldn't even look at you unless you had at least 2000 hours, - and yet guys still did it. It will drive up the costs of a co-pilot for the airlines which the airlines say will drive up ticket prices. However, pilot salaries are only about 4% of cost of business for United. It will make it more difficult for me to find and hold on to good guys (we generally only hire 2000 hours plus, and that is to drive a single engine cessna).

There is also argue that being a pilot now is more akin to being a computer manager. I don't agree with that point of view either, I can take a pilot with good stick and rudder pilot and show him how to program waypoints, that is not necessarily the same with a computer gamer that can program everything but forgets that if you hold a plane in a stall you are going to die.

Headoutdaplane wrote:The 1500 is a benchmark nonetheless. The airlines have been putting 400 hour pilots in the right seat. 400 hour pilots have vary rarely made a decision for themselves. Their instructors made the decisions, and then their captains make the decisions, and the basics of flying are lost in the crush to learn ancillary subjects.

We all have to learn to make decisions at some point. Where did you start making decisions? Wouldn't a first officer flying with an experienced captain be observing good (and sometimes bad) decision making, and learn? I think so.

The ab initio lot say that it is the same as military training, this is just not true, the selection process is very stringent in the military, and the washout rate very high.

Try working in one of the ab initio training programs, such as some of the Chinese training in this country right now....don't perform, don't devote 100 % of your waking hours to studies and flying, don't pass ONE stage check....you wind up tilling the output of a village sewage system into the rice crop....by hand. Wash out in military? Become an officer. Wash out from most of the airline programs....ugly, and no more chances.

These factors do not exist in civilian life, if you take enough loans out, or have the money you could make it through the program.

So, a person with enough loans or money can't accumulate 2000 hours by buying a C-150 and making holes in the sky for a couple thousand hours?? And, that'll make them a better pilot? Hardly.

It will be more difficult to become an airline pilot, in the mid-eighties when I was starting out in this oh-so glamorous profession, unless you were a female, the airlines wouldn't even look at you unless you had at least 2000 hours, - and yet guys still did it. It will drive up the costs of a co-pilot for the airlines which the airlines say will drive up ticket prices. However, pilot salaries are only about 4% of cost of business for United. It will make it more difficult for me to find and hold on to good guys (we generally only hire 2000 hours plus, and that is to drive a single engine cessna).

There is also argue that being a pilot now is more akin to being a computer manager. I don't agree with that point of view either, I can take a pilot with good stick and rudder pilot and show him how to program waypoints, that is not necessarily the same with a computer gamer that can program everything but forgets that if you hold a plane in a stall you are going to die.

And, that last sentence was PRECISELY what Mr. Schiff was trying to point out.....

MTV

So does sitting in the right seat, watching a student do circuits and fly the plane for 2000 Hrs make them a better pilot then the 400 hr guy that has his own plane and is flying it into short strips and onto sandbars, and really learning how to fly the plane by the way it feels? No offense to flight instructors, but I've experienced and flown a lot more places then they would dream of. Not saying I'm a better pilot, but I don't think the number of hrs is anything more then a number.
An analogy that I can put with this. Someone can have 5000 hrs on a dozer bulking dirt and be a way worse operator then the 1000 hr guy that can do finishing work...

David

Edit: when I say flight instructors I mean the ones that fly 152/172s day in day out, off of a paved strip, in a city.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Good points both of you.

Tired example but true, look how well the Air France Ab Initio worked. But I will respond to your chinese example. I would suggest that the selection process done with Chinese Ab Initio candidates in China before they ever get to the US is much closer to the military than a typical US student going to UAA, UND, Spartan, or Embry-Riddle. I spent about a month hanging out with some AbInitio pilot candidates for Japan Air in Arizona and their selection process was amazingly difficult to get through before they ever set foot in a class room.

Yes, I do believe that 1000 hours of flight instructing would be valuable time. Instructors make decisions and have responsibility for those decisions (those of you who have been flight instructors know that feeling of responsibility when you decide to sign off a solo). I also believe that if someone bought a champ and flew it for 1000 hours it would also be great experience that would make for a much better right seater. Flying banners would do it. Basically any time in the air that they would learn to fly an airplane, and make their own decisions.

The above mentioned programs are all great at teaching theory, and CRM, but I believe a pilot should also have a minimum of PIC time flying. This additional barrier to entry will create competition for new SICs among the airlines, salaries will go up, I am just not seeing a downside of mandating 1,500 hours compared to the advantage of having more experienced folks in the right seat.

We had an instructor teach us unusual attitudes.
I tried the impossible turn 12 times, the first 7 I didnt make it.
At about 500 ft AGL or so the guy will cut power to idle.

I never had an idea the turn had to be soo tight , violent full aft elevator and buffeting at the edge of the stall (yes at 500AGL)
About 50 gallons and 2 people , light breeze and sea level.
If it happened in the place we practiced I would have landed in the beach.

Will I try it? Only light weight and at about 1,000 AGL.
There is 4 attempts in theis video, one doesnt count because I think he didnt pull all the power to idle.
Also not realistic is to turn inmediatelly, like we were doing, but at least with this practice I know how hard and dangerous is.

OregonMaule wrote: I like the AOPA, I feel I get my moneys worth. They do as much as anyone to preserve our rights to fly. .......

I like the AOPA also, I feel they are GA's biggest & best advocacy group. But I lost interest in their magazine years ago -- not quite as bad as Flying with the big-budget airplane reports but overall no thanks. I called them & got myself a no-magazine membership, I think it's $20 a year-- that way I can still support their advocacy efforts. Unfortunately it didn't prevent the xmas card thing.

Where I fly, In a loaded 182 on a hot day, if the fan quits turning at 500 feet you can use your toes to calibrate your landing possibilities. Turn right ,turn left, or don't turn--cover one eye and look at the ground between your two big toes, that's your spot.

After I read Barry Schiff's article, I went out and practiced with my airplane. I could consistently make it back to the theoretical airport from 560' AGL (actually above my theoretical landing strip, which was 1000' AGL), which included turning 220 degrees either way and then 40 degrees back the other way to line up. I did it as he suggested, with a several second delay to account for recognizing the problem before reacting.

Keeping in mind that I know my airplane pretty well (about 450 hours in it, plus many hundreds in other 172s as well as a few hundred in 182s), I'm confident that if the engine quits at 600' AGL, I can make it back to the strip safely. Below that, probably not, and then the flattest area within the 180 degrees from 90 left to 90 right will be my target. But that's my airplane, with my skills; others' experiences will be different.

I have a lot of respect for Schiff. He has every right to brag much more than he does. He's flown more different types of airplanes than most of us have ever seen, his experience ranges from basic flight instruction in minimally equipped trainers through hauling cargo in medium twins through the golden age of airline travel, ending as a senior captain. His obvious knowledge is significant, and I'm glad that he's willing to share it publically in ways that are so easy to understand.

As for the AOPA bashing, I don't like all that they do, but I like enough to keep me re-upping annually, now for nearly 40 years. It's not possible to please everyone.

As for whether time in the saddle means anything, yes, I've also flown with high timers who weren't good pilots and low timers who were. But generally high time pilots who actually fly the airplanes that they've counted the hours in and don't leave it all to an autopilot have an edge over low time pilots. They've had more time to learn judgment and skills.

As for whether flight instruction counts, don't discount it without trying it. I learned a whole lot as a flight instructor, if nothing more than how to keep from letting my students kill us both. I only instructed as a CFI, then as a CFII for a few years part-time back in the early 80s, but those 130+ hours were more valuable for certain than 3 or 4 times that number of straight and level, unexciting cross country time.

Cary

I like Barry Schiff. When you're a writer for an aviation mag and you have his credentials, it might be hard to avoid coming off as "impressed with yourself." The article explored some alternative ways of looking at the problem other than what we've always been told: "Land straight ahead." I've been chanting this in my head for years on takeoff, but I think the pull to turn back is still going to be really strong if and when it happens.

Just f**king remember......

There's a whole lot less energy and crunch running into something under control at 40-50 MPH with the VSI at ZERO. Than whacking the ground at the bottom of a 300 foot stall-spin in an attempt to find a runway.

If you can react fast enough and feel solid thru the seat of your pants while turning, good on ya. If not, aim for the cheapest and softest thing to hit.

Gump