Emergency teardrop return back to the airport..

[GreenDayPilot]

Well, it wasn't as crazy as it sounds, but it was still very intense...

I was flying a C152 with a brand new student. I had him takeoff and at 500-600AGL, the engine started to backfire continuously. I don't think the engine lost a lot of RPM's, but it was still very rough. I took control and did a teardrop back in to land tailwind.

I thought of an incident that occurred 4 years ago in KLGB that had a C152 crash with fatalities. I didn't want to do the whole pattern, so I opted to return with the tailwind even though he had cleared someone for takeoff. The airplane on the runway aborted and got off. I never declared emergency, but the tower told the other aircraft "... I've got an emergency inbound." I was never worried because it wasn't a full blown engine failure and I had plenty of altitude, but it was a very good experience overall.

It's noteworthy to add that I ALWAYS do a departure briefing and I ALWAYS make my students do one. At the very least, I make my students read the checklist for "Engine Failure on T/O Roll" AND "Engine Failure Immediately After T/O" because in reality, there is never time to read the checklist. I know this is something that airlines do, and its very important for students to do. I make them go over those emergency procedures at the end of the run up, btw.

It turns out that there was a lot of led build up in all of the spark plugs... and during the run up, the mag check was perfectly fine.

 

[Socal321]

Time to switch to SPs, your student sure won't mind paying a little extra now!!!

 

[I_Money]

I practiced those when the airfield was quiet and I think every student should do at least one.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

I did an return in BNA once in the 210. Departed 2R, with a right turn to 045 to join the BNA R-068, if I remember correctly. Switching to departure, I got some smoke in the cockpit. Made a tight turn back around and landing on 31.

 

[The Gardener]

Well, it wasn't as crazy as it sounds, but it was still very intense...

I was flying a C152 with a brand new student. I had him takeoff and at 500-600AGL, the engine started to backfire continuously. I don't think the engine lost a lot of RPM's, but it was still very rough. I took control and did a teardrop back in to land tailwind.

I thought of an incident that occurred 4 years ago in KLGB that had a C152 crash with fatalities. I didn't want to do the whole pattern, so I opted to return with the tailwind even though he had cleared someone for takeoff. The airplane on the runway aborted and got off. I never declared emergency, but the tower told the other aircraft "... I've got an emergency inbound." I was never worried because it wasn't a full blown engine failure and I had plenty of altitude, but it was a very good experience overall.

It's noteworthy to add that I ALWAYS do a departure briefing and I ALWAYS make my students do one. At the very least, I make my students read the checklist for "Engine Failure on T/O Roll" AND "Engine Failure Immediately After T/O" because in reality, there is never time to read the checklist. I know this is something that airlines do, and its very important for students to do. I make them go over those emergency procedures at the end of the run up, btw.

It turns out that there was a lot of led build up in all of the spark plugs... and during the run up, the mag check was perfectly fine.

It was my understanding the a/c that crashed off Long Beach was attempting a teardrop when it stalled and spun.

My takeoff briefing involves, is XX:XX, traffic on the freeway will be good/bad/forgetaboutit!

 

[mattp1803]

I did an return in BNA once in the 210. Departed 2R, with a right turn to 045 to join the BNA R-068, if I remember correctly. Switching to departure, I got some smoke in the cockpit. Made a tight turn back around and landing on 31.

Wow, I think I remember reading that when you posted on it back in the day. Wasn't there a Southwest 737 cleared for take off right behind you? Crazy stuff right there.

 

[C150J]

I lost an engine in a 172 with a student at 500 feet on the upwind. Like your situation, it was a slow fail (lost the front left cylinder, resulting in a crankshaft imbalance that pulled the engine apart). Did the same thing. Only issue I had was the 17-knot quartering tailwind, which turned out okay thanks to the 6000+ foot runway. I was glad that, upon initially losing only 400RPM, I decided just to yank it around instead of executing an entire pattern.

I was very lucky to have had a great chief instructor who had use practice teardrop turnarounds. We all knew what altitude would permit each aircraft to make the turn (it was about 400-450 feet for the 172s we operated).

Good job getting it down.

 

[ackeight]

If you go to Simcom (or any training) for any single engine turbine you practice that regularly. My record is 500' in the TBM and 550' in the PC-12. Any lower than that and you need one hell of a headwind and some divine intervention to make it back.

 

[MikeOH58]

It's noteworthy to add that I ALWAYS do a departure briefing and I ALWAYS make my students do one.

Thats very good, and i'm glad you landed safely. Departure Briefings are MANDATORY for all my students. Doesn't have to be super complex.

Power/Brakes on the runway

Straight ahead to the xxxxx (if we are familiar with the airport)

And a turn back if we have the altitude etc...

That can be accomplished in less than 10 seconds, and i'm willing to bet that doing a briefing, and thinking about it increases your chances of survival ten fold than just taking off and having your engine quit

 

[granlistillo]

I decided just to yank it around instead of executing an entire pattern.

Don't want to take it out of context, but when people die turning around it is because they "yank" it around. Stretching A glide while yanking it around is what kills them. If you are 500 ft, partial power there is no reason to stall it. Best glide speed, somewhere around vso 1.3 and a 30 degree angle of bank and your best judgement of your energy state should allow you to walk away...

 

[VA_av8r]

I had the exact same thing happen to me a couple months ago in a 172. Even had a good run-up, same as you. My #4 cylinder had both plugs foul up at the same time, it was crazy to see when we pulled the plugs out. The a&p that cleaned them for me said that it doesn't happen too too often, but lycomings like to do that every once in a while. Glad to hear you made it safely, nice job.

 

[E_Dawg]

Don't want to take it out of context, but when people die turning around it is because they "yank" it around. Stretching A glide while yanking it around is what kills them. If you are 500 ft, partial power there is no reason to stall it. Best glide speed, somewhere around vso 1.3 and a 30 degree angle of bank and your best judgement of your energy state should allow you to walk away...

Please correct me if need be but I believe a steeper bank angle will lead to less overall altitude loss during the maneuver. It's just a matter of staying above the (higher) stall speed with the additional load. If you don't have the altitude, bank angle doesn't matter since you won't ever make it. If you're too low (or unsure) you land straight ahead.

 

[C150J]

Please correct me if need be but I believe a steeper bank angle will lead to less overall altitude loss during the maneuver. It's just a matter of staying above the (higher) stall speed with the additional load. If you don't have the altitude, bank angle doesn't matter since you won't ever make it. If you're too low (or unsure) you land straight ahead.

I was taught something similar in EMT. 45 degrees of bank at 500 feet, with PROPER energy management, will yield the best combination of radius and stall speed increase. That being said, 'stillo is certainly correct in saying that an over-reaction will result terribly. My use of "yank" was bad diction.

 

[granlistillo]

You may be right on the 45 aob, but it isn't much more than 30 and erodes the safety margin.
One of the neat things about trigonometry is the parts are greater than the whole so to speak. at a 45 degree angle of bank you have 71 percent your total lift as the vertical comp of lift and 71 percent of you horizontal component. That is like 142 percent... at 30 aob it is 87 and 50 so that is like 137...

At 45 you are pulling 1/.707 or 1.42 gees and at 30 aob you are pulling 1/.866 = 1.15 gees.

So bring it around smartly, around 30 to 40 degrees at best glide, and you will be managing your energy fine, and have a safety margin. Of course you want to be able to judge your sink rate and put it down under control aimed at the softest thing possible. The idea about landing ahead is that people panic and try to wrap it around. You start over banking and pulling and you will be in an acclerated stall quick. Got to know thyself, and realize the smartest bet may land straight ahead. But if you have the discipline to maintain best glide and 30 aob, you can manuever. Don't get scope locked on making it to the runway if you see you are gonna be short doing it properly.
BTW, I am speaking in general terms and not trying to give you advice. I am sure you have a lot more single engine time than I do... I do agree with the sentiments of edawg that if you aren't sure, landing ahead is probably your best route.

 

[tgrayson]

I was taught something similar in EMT. 45 degrees of bank at 500 feet, with PROPER energy management, will yield the best combination of radius and stall speed increase.

Yes. And just slightly above the stall speed, according to the analyses I've seen.

 

[granlistillo]

Yes. And just slightly above the stall speed, according to the analyses I've seen.

Could be a law of diminishing returns. A LITTLE bit more efficient turn could be a LOT more closer to digging a deep hole. There is also the problem with overbanking when you reach 45 degrees and you will most definately have your attention divided.

 

[tgrayson]

Could be a law of diminishing returns. A LITTLE bit more efficient turn could be a LOT more closer to digging a deep hole. There is also the problem with overbanking when you reach 45 degrees and you will most definately have your attention divided.

The procedure actually has quite a bit better performance. But I do agree that you're likely to end up with more stall/spin accidents if large numbers of pilots attempted to do it. Certainly not a good idea without training. Here is a comparison that an author makes of two different strategies for the turnback:

In Ref. 1 Eckalbar states "If you depart straight out in a 285 hp Bonanza climbing at 96 kts, you will be about 11,000 feet from your brake release point when you reach 1,000 feet agl". Eckalbar's recommended procedure assumes a steady climb at Vy. For these conditions the turn radius at V = 1.3Vs= 1/cos(phi)  = 123.5 mph and a 35 degree bank angle is approximately 981 feet. Eckalbar gives the altitude loss during the turn as 792 feet. Thus, at the completion of the 270/90 turn the aircraft is 9,038 feet from the brake release point at an altitude of 208 feet. At Vldmax from an altitude of 208 feet the aircraft glides 2197 feet before contacting the ground. Thus, to land on the end of the departure runway requires a runway length of 6841 feet from brake release, i.e., a runway nearly 7000 feet long.

In contrast, the present model using a teardrop flight path, climb out at Vx and a 45 bank angle at a velocity of V = 1.05Vs = 1/cos(phi)  = 107.7 mph yields a required runway length of approximately 825 feet, a factor of more than eight less than the procedure recommended by Eckalbar. Using a 35 bank angle increases the required runway length to approximately 1450, feet which is still a factor of nearly five less.
​

 

[CFI-wanna-fly]

I feel like I have to post this video I found online. What I like about it is that you can see for yourself the results of different bank angles and descent rates, and the resulting altitude loss in a simulated emergency turn back to the airport.

http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html

This might be a good exercise for private pilots to do with an instructor at altitude for added safety, to understand your aircraft better.

Balls centered!
Dan

 

[Douglas]

I never declared emergency, but the tower told the other aircraft "... I've got an emergency inbound." I was never worried because it wasn't a full blown engine failure and I had plenty of altitude, but it was a very good experience overall.

You don't have to declare an emergency for ATC to declare one for you and give you priority, which he did.

Glad it all worked out.

 

[Blackhawk]

I feel like I have to post this video I found online. What I like about it is that you can see for yourself the results of different bank angles and descent rates, and the resulting altitude loss in a simulated emergency turn back to the airport.

http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html

This might be a good exercise for private pilots to do with an instructor at altitude for added safety, to understand your aircraft better.

Balls centered!
Dan

The only problem I have with this video and a general statement of "I can make the turn from XXX feet", is that there are many variables. What type of airplane? Okay, a 172... how is it loaded? (I imagine this video was not made with the airplane at maximum gross weight). What type of 172? What is the DA? How much of a tail wind? Is there a quartering headwind- if so, which way will you turn? Will this make your turn toward hangers and parked airplanes or other obstacles?
I am not advocating against the turn back, or in favor of it. There are, however, many variables that are often not discussed in training. Also, in many scenarios it may be better to just write off the airplane and crash it in a survivable manner- such as looking for backyards with chain link or wood fences (they make for good arresting gear). These are things to think about and look at prior to take off in the comfort of the FBO (Google Earth is good for looking at this).
Finally, there have been a number of pilots killed training on this manuever at low altitude. Be careful out there.