Four Case Western Students Killed in 172 Crash

[Pilot Fighter]

It's worth noting that turning back to the field isn't the killer, stalling and crashing is the killer. It is possible to fail in your attempt to make the field without stalling and dying. Fly the plane and recognize when it no longer appears possible to make the field - change your plan.

I've been to ultralight and experimental fly-ins that saw half a dozen engine failures. In the two-stroke world, it's part of the sport and is never far from your thoughts. You expect it, you practice it, you plan for it. In the GA world, the lack of training and rarity combine for poor outcomes.

 

[dustoff17]

When you're practicing these turns as @MikeD has mentioned, make sure you're in trim (ball centered). One thing that will get you in trouble at low airspeeds is cross controlling (one big cause of low altitude and pattern crashes). As you practice as mentioned above, you'll start to get a "feel" for aircraft in trim while turning and slowing all at the same time. After you get a feel for this, you can start to incorporate slips in order to get to the runway.
As I typed the last sentence it occurred to me that, while aiming for the runway is a great idea; taxiways, ramps and areas between runways are plausible as well.

Do all of this practice at altitude until to understand both your aircraft AND your limits.

 

[gliderboy]

+1 Many pilots are unaware that in an emergency you can land on crossing taxiways, ramps, etc. Just call it out on tower freq. and try to get it down without hitting anything.

(I firmly believe that all private/student pilots should be required to get a couple of hours in gliders.)

 

[killbilly]

+1 Many pilots are unaware that in an emergency you can land on crossing taxiways, ramps, etc. Just call it out on tower freq. and try to get it down without hitting anything.

(I firmly believe that all private/student pilots should be required to get a couple of hours in gliders.)

Just an aside, but when I was getting my TW endorsement, I was DELIGHTED to learn that we could take off from the grass section between the runway and the taxiway, and that we could land there, too, if we needed to.

 

[Radu38J]

Some other things one should take into account when attempting this: wind (direction and strength), climb speed (wether at Vx or Vy), and runway length. Let me explain with a seemingly ideal case:
- e.g. you take off from a 2400' runway in calm winds, in a C172 at Vy (73kts IIRC)
- engine fails at 1000'
- assume instant reaction (actually more like 5-10 sec)
- you need to turn about 270 deg (180 + 45 to reintercept the opposite runway centerline, plus 45 to get you established)
- your best glide is 65kts (actually, less, as likely your weight is less than max gross), so let's say you glide back at the ideal 62kts for you

You will *never* make it back, even in these seemingly ideal conditions. Why? because of the no wind and short runway: you traveled one way at approx 73kts, then took probably at least 1 min to get back to your straight in, then you are traveling at 62 kts heading back. It doesn't matter that you had climbed to 1000' or 10k. The short runway and no wind will make you land short of it, as you're heading back slower than when you departed.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I teach my students to attempt it (with me), at altitude. They usually lose a few hundred feet. But, this can only be attempted if all the conditions have been previously studied and decided upon. Don't take off and try to figure out things in the air. On a strong wind day, with at least 3-4k runway, I would attempt it at 600ft, *if* I didn't have better alternatives.

 

[dustoff17]

Some other things one should take into account when attempting this: wind (direction and strength), climb speed (wether at Vx or Vy), and runway length. Let me explain with a seemingly ideal case:
- e.g. you take off from a 2400' runway in calm winds, in a C172 at Vy (73kts IIRC)
- engine fails at 1000'
- assume instant reaction (actually more like 5-10 sec)
- you need to turn about 270 deg (180 + 45 to reintercept the opposite runway centerline, plus 45 to get you established)
- your best glide is 65kts (actually, less, as likely your weight is less than max gross), so let's say you glide back at the ideal 62kts for you

You will *never* make it back, even in these seemingly ideal conditions. Why? because of the no wind and short runway: you traveled one way at approx 73kts, then took probably at least 1 min to get back to your straight in, then you are traveling at 62 kts heading back. It doesn't matter that you had climbed to 1000' or 10k. The short runway and no wind will make you land short of it, as you're heading back slower than when you departed.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I teach my students to attempt it (with me), at altitude. They usually lose a few hundred feet. But, this can only be attempted if all the conditions have been previously studied and decided upon. Don't take off and try to figure out things in the air. On a strong wind day, with at least 3-4k runway, I would attempt it at 600ft, *if* I didn't have better alternatives.

IF you used every single inch of the 2,400' runway then I would agree with your calculations/assessment with one exception (to be noted later). If you start your take off roll from the approach end, you would have all the runway in front of your liftoff that would count in favor of your return. [something to consider next time you ask for an intersection departure just to save you time in the taxi].
I take exception to your statements, "Never" and "It doesn't matter that you climbed to 1,000' or 10k." I have to ask: what is the rate of climb at 73kts or how long (time or distance covered) would it take you to get to 10k? The numbers don't add up to me but it's been a while since I've flown a 172.

 

[Pichettet1]

Some other things one should take into account when attempting this: wind (direction and strength), climb speed (wether at Vx or Vy), and runway length. Let me explain with a seemingly ideal case:
- e.g. you take off from a 2400' runway in calm winds, in a C172 at Vy (73kts IIRC)
- engine fails at 1000'
- assume instant reaction (actually more like 5-10 sec)
- you need to turn about 270 deg (180 + 45 to reintercept the opposite runway centerline, plus 45 to get you established)
- your best glide is 65kts (actually, less, as likely your weight is less than max gross), so let's say you glide back at the ideal 62kts for you

You will *never* make it back, even in these seemingly ideal conditions. Why? because of the no wind and short runway: you traveled one way at approx 73kts, then took probably at least 1 min to get back to your straight in, then you are traveling at 62 kts heading back. It doesn't matter that you had climbed to 1000' or 10k. The short runway and no wind will make you land short of it, as you're heading back slower than when you departed.

Rate of descent at 62kts vs rate of climb at 73 kts? That's a big variable you left out. You're absolutely correct that you travel less distance in a set time going a slower GS. But that isn't the only factor.

Let's say you're in a 152, 1670# climbing at 67 kts at 700fpm (20C) at sea level with no wind. You climb to 1000'. This puts you approximately 1.6nm from where you left the ground. If your engine quit and you immediately turned back and slowed to 60kts with no flaps, your rate of decent would be approximately 400fpm. It would take you about 40s to make that turn at around 20 degree bank plus a little turn back to get lined up. In 45s you have lost 300' (or so) and are .85nm from where you left the ground. 700' to go and .85nm is nearly twice what you would need to get back to your original departure point.

Before anyone says anything, yes you'd lose more altitude in the turn most likely, but my biggest point is that the glide ratio covers much more distance per foot of altitude lost than you cover in the climb. Making it possible on a no-wind day after a certain altitude. This is just a *poor* mathematical example by someone who hasn't done algebra since high school.

 

[Radu38J]

I can look over the math tomorrow, but 2 things to consider:
- i don't remember exact numbers for the 172 and haven't down the 152 in a couple of years, but the engine out descent rate is closer to +600 fpm in the 173…and the climb rate isn't that much better. Yes, the difference comes from the actual angle, which i approximated to 0 so the ground speed would match the airspeed. In reality, the exact ground speed matters
- you forget that during that teardrop turn, the plane is still advancing for the first part of it and moving away from the centerline, so after being reistablished inbound, you end up close to where you where you where when the engine failed. You didn't travel back for 1 nm. Add to that the normal reaction time.

Dustoff,i shouldn't have said 'never'. I meant under these conditions, i wouldn't. With a longish runway, or strong wind, i would.

Excuse the typos, I'm on the phone

 

[Pichettet1]

I can look over the math tomorrow, but 2 things to consider:
- i don't remember exact numbers for the 172 and haven't down the 152 in a couple of years, but the engine out descent rate is closer to +600 fpm in the 173…and the climb rate isn't that much better. Yes, the difference comes from the actual angle, which i approximated to 0 so the ground speed would match the airspeed. In reality, the exact ground speed matters
- you forget that during that teardrop turn, the plane is still advancing for the first part of it and moving away from the centerline, so after being reistablished inbound, you end up close to where you where you where when the engine failed. You didn't travel back for 1 nm. Add to that the normal reaction time.

Dustoff,i shouldn't have said 'never'. I meant under these conditions, i wouldn't. With a longish runway, or strong wrong, i would

Which is why I put that qualifying statement. Essentially, you need enough altitude so that the distance gained towards the runway can be accomplished. If you do not climb at a greater rate than you would descend on your max glide, you were correct in that you'd never make it back. My math was to show that you could, given sufficient altitude and a rate of climb greater than your rate of descent.

Edit: again note this is in a zero wind condition per your original argument.

 

[JustinS]

Has anyone actually ever practiced an engine out scenario returning to the field??? I've tried it a few times. Our school teaches 600' AGL as a decision point at which we could safely make a turn back to the field at our discretion. I cringe a little after reading a lot of the remarks in here about how this is a bad idea after being taught this through my single engine training and our school universally teaching it to all our students...

I have even simulated an engine failure at or above that altitude to see what student's decision making is. I've seen it work plenty well even off of short runways. Once you climb above 600' AGL, you actually end up really high on final by the time you've got it turned around. Granted this was in a Cessna 172R. Our Citabria 7ECAs I'd have a lot more doubts about 600' actually working out. Haven't tried it in the 7ECA before...

I thought a while before posting, but I felt I had something to contribute to the discussion. I'm curious what others thoughts are on the matter.

 

[Radu38J]

OK. I should not have said 10k as well. As you go higher, the difference between the climb and descend angles will compensate enough to account for the difference in ground speed. I was exaggerating to make this point. In general I agree with you with certainly n caveats.
In your example with the 152, if after the turn you end up approximately where the failure occurred and you've already lost 3-400ft, that may not be enough to get you back to where you lifted off from. If you were doing touch and goes and lifted off close to the ruway end, your luck may have run out.
All that said It's best to try it out as an exercise at an empty field and see what you can do. And add a buffer for the real thing.

 

[MikeD]

Has anyone actually ever practiced an engine out scenario returning to the field??? I've tried it a few times. Our school teaches 600' AGL as a decision point at which we could safely make a turn back to the field at our discretion. I cringe a little after reading a lot of the remarks in here about how this is a bad idea after being taught this through my single engine training and our school universally teaching it to all our students...

I have even simulated an engine failure at or above that altitude to see what student's decision making is. I've seen it work plenty well even off of short runways. Once you climb above 600' AGL, you actually end up really high on final by the time you've got it turned around. Granted this was in a Cessna 172R. Our Citabria 7ECAs I'd have a lot more doubts about 600' actually working out. Haven't tried it in the 7ECA before...

I thought a while before posting, but I felt I had something to contribute to the discussion. I'm curious what others thoughts are on the matter.

In most small planes, I pad the bolded altitude to 800 AGL, but that's only my technique for a little extra pad. If 600 AGL works fine as a decision point and it's known that it will generally work, then by all means use it. Because you know and have tested it, and are comfortable with it as a point of reference for emergency decision making. THIS is what's needed. A number that a pilot can hang his hat on and know that below X AGL, turnback option simply doesn't exist. Above X AGL, it does. Without any kind of pre-planned and known reference, then yeah, the chances of one killing themselves trying it, is very high.

 

[killbilly]

When practicing this - even at altitude - does it make sense to pad the altitudes a bit more? As I understand it, you still have a tiny bit of thrust from an engine at idle and that the plane drops more quickly when the engine is actually out and the prop isn't turning.

I've never flown with an engine completely out/off, and knowing those differences would be pretty important if they matter.

 

[Fly_Unity]

Our 141 school teaches 1000 feet. Easily made most every time. As checkinstructor, I do it on a stage 3 check for each student and they are pretty proficiant it by the time they come to me. I just had one student do it on the RG but forgot to lift the landing gear up after takeoff. I pulled power and he still made it. Of course we also teach the human factors with it as well such as delayed reaction, tendacy to pull up when low, etc.

 

[Fly_Unity]

When practicing this - even at altitude - does it make sense to pad the altitudes a bit more? As I understand it, you still have a tiny bit of thrust from an engine at idle and that the plane drops more quickly when the engine is actually out and the prop isn't turning.

I've never flown with an engine completely out/off, and knowing those differences would be pretty important if they matter.

There is no noticeable difference between idle, and fuel off. Both situations you have the prop windmilling creating drag. Ive demonstrated this (by myself, over an airport), turning fuel on or off does nothing. Unless your idle speed is set high enough that it can overcome the windmilling prop and create thrust?

 

[killbilly]

There is no noticeable difference between idle, and fuel off. Both situations you have the prop windmilling creating drag. Ive demonstrated this (by myself, over an airport), turning fuel on or off does nothing. Unless your idle speed is set high enough that it can overcome the windmilling prop and create thrust?

That's good to know. It's something I'd like to attempt (cutting the fuel off entirely) but I guess I'm a bit nervous about doing that. I'll talk to my local CFI about it....

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Without any kind of pre-planned and known reference, then yeah, the chances of one killing themselves trying it, is very high.

You are spot on, except for this last line. Folks aren't dying turning around and failing to make the field, they are dying when they stall their aircraft. Depending on the field, turning back and coming up short could be okay. At other fields, it could have you dueling with semis on a busy Interstate. I think the lesson should be, whatever your decision, keep flying the plane. Have a plan, keep flying the plane, change your plans when they no longer make sense.

Many of those that die turning back die in their first maneuver, the big turn. Some of those could have make the field or landed short without serious injury.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

- engine fails at 1000'
- assume instant reaction (actually more like 5-10 sec)
- you need to turn about 270 deg (180 + 45 to reintercept the opposite runway centerline, plus 45 to get you established)
- your best glide is 65kts (actually, less, as likely your weight is less than max gross), so let's say you glide back at the ideal 62kts for you

You will *never* make it back, even in these seemingly ideal conditions. Why? because of the no wind and short runway: you traveled one way at approx 73kts, then took probably at least 1 min to get back to your straight in, then you are traveling at 62 kts heading back.

A few flawed assumptions here. One is that you need to be exactly lined up on the centerline. Not really the case. I've landed sideways across the numbers before. With a 200' runway, that is a lot of room. I have a stopping distance of about 250' in an aircraft I fly. The 50' of grass at 10kts will not likely hurt anything.

You need to turn 180 degrees, but you also need to maximize the rate of turn, and minimize the radius of turn. At the same time, you want to maximize your time in the air. This calls for flying less than best glide airspeed. (It is called minimum sink airspeed, and will generally be just above the stall buffet.) It also calls for making a 45 degree bank turn, which does raise the stall speed slightly. A 172 will sink at about 600fpm at best glide. In 45 degrees of bank at 65kts, we will turn 180 degrees in 12 seconds with a turn radius of 410 feet. This will leave you at about 800 AGL, pointed down the runway, 400 feet to one side. You can land just fine, and your biggest problem will be the risk of overshooting a short runway - a side slip will likely be required - but hey - you needed to move a bit to the side anyway.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Has anyone actually ever practiced an engine out scenario returning to the field??? I've tried it a few times. Our school teaches 600' AGL as a decision point at which we could safely make a turn back to the field at our discretion. I cringe a little after reading a lot of the remarks in here about how this is a bad idea after being taught this through my single engine training and our school universally teaching it to all our students...

Dozens of times, from as low as 200 AGL in a glider. It is actually a checkride task for glider pilots, at about 200'. The reason airplane need to be higher is the tremendously worse sink rate, and to a lesser extent, higher airspeed. Works exactly the same in airplanes, 800AGL would be my cutoff- lower than that, taxiways and intersecting runways are a better bet.

The higher airspeed in airplanes will REQUIRE a turn into the wind, as the already bigger turn radius will leave you nowhere near the airport. @Rocketman99 can tell you all about that over a beer. I think he ended up using a lesson learned in the sim not too long ago.

 

[JustinS]

The higher airspeed in airplanes will REQUIRE a turn into the wind, as the already bigger turn radius will leave you nowhere near the airport. @Rocketman99 can tell you all about that over a beer. I think he ended up using a lesson learned in the sim not too long ago.

Yeah that's part of our engine failure brief we teach. Altitude at which we can safely return, and which way we'll turn to go into the wind. I've tried a simulated engine failure returning to the field accidentally turning away from the wind... Yeah there was no way I was making it back at that point...