COURSE REVIEW
The concept of an engine failure occurring shortly after takeoff is a nightmare. It happens too often. It happened twice to my father. Both times he instinctively turned back and landed on the runway, but he was heavily criticized for doing so. The conventional advice was to go straight ahead—no matter what. This caused him to begin a decades long study on the topic. When teaching me to fly, dad taught me when and how to safely turnback to the runway following an engine failure shortly after takeoff.
Continuing straight ahead (or somewhere within your windscreen) after an engine fails shortly after takeoff is excellent advice. Most of the time this will be the safest course of action. There are exceptions. Turning around is risky. It could lead to a stall/spin accident. Statistics are replete with stalls and spins entered inadvertently by frightened pilots with an aversion to flight near the ground. Low-time pilots certainly should not attempt a turnback. The probability of success is proportional to experience.
Very little is taught about this potentially catastrophic event. It is usually summarized in a single sentence: "If the engine fails after takeoff, land straight ahead; do not turn back to the airport." This "rule," however, is not so golden that it must be accepted without question or criticism. This is a controversial subject that requires substantial analysis.
Pilots turn around without having thought through the problem or preparing for what it would be like. There is a natural tendency to return to where you came from, so it’s instinctive to turn—and it is often wishful thinking. When an airliner makes a survivable crash landing, most of the passengers usually flock toward the single front door through which they originally entered. Never mind that a flight attendant urges them to leave through a closer, more suitable exit; they're not listening. Shocked passengers often have tunnel-vision and travel the entire length of the fuselage (even through an over-wing fuselage fire) to get to where it all began—the front door.
The difference between success and failure is not only having sufficient altitude but knowing how and when the turnback maneuver can be performed. When a pilot is below the minimum safe turnback altitude, they must fight the natural, often overwhelming instinct to return to the airport.
There are times when going straight ahead would be extremely dangerous. Returning to the airport is the only option because of what lies ahead: structures, terrain, etc. The problem is returning to the airport often results in tragedy. Each time this type of tragedy strikes, it seems to further prove that we should never turn back. But since pilots are doing it anyway, we should teach them how to mitigate most of the risk.
Many pilots have returned safely after turning back to the runway after an engine failure. We don’t hear about them because nobody was injured, and no property was damaged. They don’t become statistics.
Those who have attempted the turnback and failed usually crashed because of a stall/spin. Witnesses have reported seeing the stall/spin develop quickly with little time for the pilot to recover. These ill-fated pilots turned without any forethought or preparation. Regarding fatal turnback attempts, the FAA has found that the pilots’ “decisions are made impulsively with inadequate planning”.
Naysayers have dubbed the turnback maneuver as “the impossible turn”. They site numerous accidents. It is likely that most of these pilots hadn’t the benefit of training on how and when to perform it.
So finally, the FAA has agreed that turning back to the airport after the engine fails can be the safer choice. Advisory Circular (AC) 61-83J (Subject: Nationally Scheduled, FAA-Approved, Industry-Conducted Flight Instructor Refresher Course) provides guidance and recommendations for flight instructor refresher courses (FIRCs). As of September of 2018, the AC recommends that FIRCs address the topic of returning to the field after an engine failure on takeoff. It further states that we should be teaching the pilot “to determine quickly whether a turnback will have a successful outcome”.
CONSIDERATIONS
Most of the time it is safer to continue straight ahead. Only turn back to the runway when it would be more hazardous not to.
Once a pilot acknowledges the additional risk of having no options near the airport after an engine fails, the least they can do is prepare for the possibility. One ace up their sleeve is knowing the minimum safe turnback altitude of their aircraft. Having a target altitude provides a psychological advantage during a time when a pilot is burdened with an assortment of departure chores and is least prepared for an engine failure. With a target altitude in mind, they are not forced to make an immediate "turn/no turn" decision. That determination was made where it should have been made-on the ground.
When conditions suggest using the turnback maneuver, a pilot can ill afford the luxury of guesswork. They must know that they can make it safely or not attempt the turn. Once committed to a course reversal, they must perform with cool, calculated precision, turning at the desired bank angle while maintaining closely the optimum glide speed. Large variations in pilot performance can drastically erode valuable altitude.
There are no hard-fast rules. No one can be so presumptuous as to tell a pilot exactly what to do when their engine fails after takeoff. It is for each pilot to decide what course of action is best. The possible factors involved are too numerous to mention. The pilot must consider every facet of each takeoff. If a takeoff has no off-airport options, they should employ turnback planning. Briefing this before the takeoff with themselves and any other pilots would be especially beneficial. Another technique would be to verbally callout the minimum turnback altitude for every takeoff.
Flight instructors should become thoroughly familiar with the specific airplane prior to providing instruction on turnbacks.
One procedure far superior to the turnback maneuver is simply to avoid the engine failure in the first place. The most common causes include being in a hurry, inadequate preflight inspection, fuel system mismanagement and not accomplishing a checklist.
Since fuel starvation or exhaustion is more common than structural or mechanical failure, a pilot should modify their normal thorough preflight to include setting the fuel selector valve on the fullest tank prior to engine start. Once this is done, the valve should not be moved again until the aircraft is in cruise flight.
As the throttle is advanced during the initial takeoff roll, the pilot should consider the possibility of and be prepared for an aborted takeoff. Observations during many flight reviews indicates that they are not. Most pilots seem bias towards going when they should abort the takeoff. After maximum power is stabilized (a pilot should know the indications of their airplane for stabilized maximum power), they should listen carefully for unusual roughness and judiciously scan engine gauges. Unfortunately, too few single-engine pilots are mentally prepared for an abort; they are "wired to go" and tend to either ignore or contend with abnormalities until it is too late to simply retard the throttle and brake to a safe stop. Another nice thing to know is where on the runway you expect to reach a certain airspeed. (Allow for wind variations and density altitude.) Be as ready to stop as you are to go.
When obstacles dictate that continuing straight ahead would be more hazardous than a turnback, a pre-takeoff plan is required. The initial climb should be made as steeply as is practical and safe. Climb at a speed between best angle of climb (VX)and best rate of climb (VY). VXresults in an attitude that is too nose-high and would require a dramatic change in pitch attitude very quickly. The VYclimb angle is relatively flat and may not offer the precious altitude needed closer to the runway.
Do not reduce power until safely above the minimum turnback altitude. Don't worry about damaging or overheating the engine. This procedure has no adverse effect on the modern engine.
Once airborne, get into the habit of looking for a place to land. It might be difficult to think about a forced landing during the early moments of flight, but this simple procedure can pay off handsomely. If a spot has been selected, the shock of an engine failure at low altitude is not quite so traumatic. Suitable landing sites are not always ahead or behind; they may be off to the side. The point is that the pilot should look for one while they have the opportunity to do so. It's like insurance; hopefully they will never use it. I constantly quiz my students when they least expect it: “If the engine quit right now, where would you go?” If they start looking after I ask…tsk tsk.
If a pilot determines that a turnback is the least hazardous course of action, some factors to consider include direction of turn, wind direction and velocity, altitude and distance from the airport. Turning into the wind decreases lateral displacement from the runway and allows the aircraft to be more easily aligned with the centerline after the turnback is completed. A downwind turn, however, causes the aircraft to drift farther from the runway, decreasing the likelihood of a safe return to the airport.
If the wind is blowing straight down the runway, then turn in whichever direction is most comfortable (most pilots prefer to turn left). Consider, however, that as altitude is gained in the lower layers of the atmosphere, Mr. Coriolis makes the wind veer clockwise (in the Northern Hemisphere), suggesting that a right turn is more practical. In other words, a headwind straight down the runway turns into a crosswind from the right as you climb upwind.
If a pilot departs from a parallel runway, they probably should turn toward the other parallel and land on it. They must not have a fixation about landing on the departure runway. When a pilot's one-and-only engine fails, anywhere is fair game. If a taxiway, another runway or a clear area between seems a better choice, then exercise your options (and authority). Put the airplane on any surface that appears survivable.
The turnback should be made using a 45-degree bank angle. The altitude loss in a Cessna 172, for example, is 380 feet when a shallow bank is used, but only 210 feet when the bank angle is steepened to 75 degrees.
It might seem odd that a shallow bank results in more altitude loss than a steep bank. After all, the sink rate during a gliding turn does increase with bank angle. The explanation involves the element of time. When a Cessna 172 is banked 30 degrees while gliding at 70 knots, the rate of turn is only 9 degrees per second. As a result, the time required to execute a 180-degree turn is 20 seconds—enough time for substantial altitude loss even though the descent rate is nominal.
Conversely, the turn rate increases to an astonishing 58 degrees per second during a 75-degree bank. In this case, a 180-degree turn requires only three seconds, insufficient time to lose substantial altitude even with a relatively high descent rate.
The results of my flight testing seem to favor using a steep bank angle. But another factor must be considered: stall speed. Increased stall speeds result from progressively steepened bank angles. During a 30-degree banked turn, stall speed increases only fractionally, from 50 to 53 knots in a Cessna 172, for instance. In a 75-degree banked turn, stall speed increases by a dramatic 97 percent (in all airplanes). It is obvious that steep bank angles must be avoided during any low-altitude maneuvering.
Another argument against the steep turn is the difficulty a pilot would encounter while attempting to arrest a high sink rate near the ground. With the aircraft already dangerously close to stall, added elevator pressure is required to overcome the airplane's substantial vertical momentum. This aggravates the problem by increasing the probability of a high-speed (accelerated) stall near the ground.
Test results and calculations indicate that the optimum bank angle is a compromise between the altitude-losing effects of the shallow bank and the rising stall speeds associated with steep bank angles. The optimum bank angle, therefore, is 45 degrees because this divides wing lift evenly between turning and supporting aircraft weight. It provides a moderate turn rate and altitude loss, combined with an acceptable 19 percent increase in stall speed. A 45-degree bank angle gives a reasonably rapid turn rate and short turn radius.
The turn should be coordinated. Slipping is counterproductive because it increases the rate at which you lose precious altitude. Although skidding reduces turn radius and increases turn rate—so does a spin! Don’t skid—you’ll spin. Once you’re pointed at your precious landing site with the landing assured, slip only if necessary to lose altitude.
The target airspeed to use for the turnback maneuver is best glide speed. Slightly less works better but weigh that against the risk of stalling. The slower the better because it reduces the amount of altitude loss per degree of turn. You may hear an intermittent stall warning, but remember, the stall warning is just that—a warning that you are approaching a stall, not an actual stall. The stall warning is designed to activate approximately 10 percent above stall speed, so in a 45-degree bank at best glide speed, you may hear it. Respect the horn and relax back-pressure, but don’t be alarmed by an intermittent warning during the turnback. Maintain a coordinated turn!
If the engine fails immediately after liftoff, land straight ahead on the remaining runway under control with your wings level and use maximum braking after touchdown.
If the engine fails when you are beyond a point where you can land and stop on the runway, do the best you can. You’re going to crash land somewhere straight ahead no matter what. Maintain control and avoid obstacles. Do as Bob Hoover said, “Fly the airplane into the crash.”
If the engine fails when you are almost high enough to turnback and land, but haven’t reached your predetermined Turnback Altitude, make partial turns to a softer crash-landing site. If you must hit trees, put the fuselage between two of them. From this altitude, you have more options, but the turnback is not one of them.
If the engine fails after you’ve reached the minimum Turnback Altitude immediately bank into the wind 45 degrees and pitch for best glide speed. Don’t troubleshoot. Don’t crane your neck looking for the runway…yet. You know it’s back there. Fly the airplane. Resist the temptation to steepen the bank and/or reduce airspeed. Don’t attempt to restart the engine. That wastes precious time and altitude that might be needed for the emergency procedure. Besides, if everything was as it should have been before beginning the takeoff roll, there is likely nothing you can do that would restart the engine except for turning on a fuel pump, which takes no time.
THE MANEUVER
So how much height above the ground does a pilot need to turn around safely? This depends on the airplane and the pilot’s skill. It can be determined with a relatively simple flight test at a safe altitude. The first step involves establishing the airplane in a full-power climb halfway between VXand VYwhile on a cardinal heading (north, east, south, or west). When passing through a cardinal altitude (2,000 or 3,000 feet, for example), pull the throttle closed. Delay doing anything, though, for five seconds. The FAA says that four seconds is typically how long it can take for the average pilot to recognize and react to the shock of an actual engine failure. Rather than allow the nose to drop, hold the nose in climb attitude, but don’t stall for these five seconds because this is what many pilots tend to do following engine failure. (Note: in the event of an actual engine failure shortly after takeoff, there’s no need to wait five seconds. Turn as soon as you are finished soiling your pants.)
After the five seconds elapse, simultaneously roll the airplane into a left or right 45-degree bank and lower the nose to establish and maintain no more than the best glide speed (or perhaps slightly less, depending on your comfort level with this).
Continue the turn for 360 degrees because reversing course to the runway requires more than a 180-degree turn. A 180 only places the airplane parallel to the runway and displaced to one side. Additional maneuvering is needed to return to the runway centerline to line up with the runway. Flight testing has shown that 360 degrees of turn approximates the ground-track distance of maneuvering back to the runway.
At the end of the 360-degree turn, roll wings level, initiate a simulated flare to zero the sink rate, and note the amount of altitude lost. (Observed Altitude Loss) Increase this altitude loss by a 50 percent safety margin to account for other factors. If altitude loss during the 360-degree turn is 600 feet, for example, the minimum Turnback Height (above the ground) for your airplane would be 900 feet.
Perform this maneuver a few times. You likely will discover that you can improve on your first attempt and reduce the altitude loss. Rolling into and holding the 45-degree bank while maintaining best glide speed, however, is initially more challenging than you might imagine. The goal is to become familiar, comfortable, and proficient with the maneuver.
Another important consideration is climb profile. A successful turnback requires not only reaching the minimum Turnback Altitude, it requires also that you climb to at least two-thirds of the Observed Altitude Loss by the time you pass over the departure end of the runway. This demonstrates that the airplane can reach the minimum Turnback Altitude while close enough to the airport to have the ability to return. If you are not this high when passing the end of the runway, it means that either the runway is too short, or the airplane will be too far from the airport to make a safe return by the time you finally reach the minimum Turnback Altitude. A turnback normally should not be made to a very short runway because the pilot is afforded so little margin for error.
The likelihood of a successful turnback diminishes when taking off into a strong wind. Landing downwind with a strong tailwind might make it difficult to stop the aircraft within the confines of the airport. At such a time, a pilot might be better off taking advantage of the headwind to land straight ahead with a much-reduced groundspeed.
Once a pilot opts to turn around and is stabilized in the emergency maneuver, they should turn their head and look toward the runway to visually confirm that they really can glide there safely. Consider also that it might be more convenient and safer to land on a long taxiway or another runway. If it does not appear that you can glide safely to the airport, select the softest off-airport landing site ahead of the airplane and land there at the slowest speed possible and while still under control.
Does this discussion imply that I recommend turning back toward the runway following an engine failure after takeoff? No, it does not. The decision to return to the airport rests solely with the pilot in command. Furthermore, it should never be considered unless the risk associated with landing ahead or to the side poses greater risk than turning around. Unfortunately, there are many airports where a straight-ahead landing would be disastrous.
The idea is to be prepared for the possibility of a turnback. Think about it. Train for it. Otherwise, when the engine fails after takeoff, the mind can turn to mush. Time, altitude, and airspeed are wasted while trying to accept the reality of the moment and determine the safest course of action.
Remember, though: Under no circumstances should a turn back to the runway be initiated unless the aircraft has achieved at least two-thirds of the Observed Altitude Loss (as described) when passing over the departure end of the runway and it also has reached at least the minimum Turnback Altitude at the time of engine failure. Even then, there is no assurance of success.
Furthermore, no pilot should attempt such a maneuver unless flying an aircraft for which they have personally determined the minimum Turnback Altitude and is competent to perform such a maneuver during the stress of an emergency. When a pilot follows a calculated course of action, their mind is less encumbered with fear.
Regarding teaching pilots the turnback maneuver, Martha Lunken, Flying magazine columnist, makes an excellent point, “Six months or six years later they are gonna kill themselves. A successful outcome demands an immediate, almost instinctive reaction and exquisite airmanship under panic conditions…something few people can pull off.” So, practice the maneuver regularly and remain proficient. The odds of it happening to you are inversely proportional to how prepared you are to handle it, and your odds of success if it does are directly proportional to your proficiency.
Some macho pilots have suggested various other means of turning around including wingovers, wifferdills, skidding turns, and other semi-aerobatic maneuvers. None of this maneuvering is recommended when so close to the ground.
Some good news about this subject is that an engine failure after takeoff frequently can be avoided. It most often is caused by fuel mismanagement or attempting to depart with a detectable engine anomaly. Being more attentive and conservative can significantly reduce the possibility that you will be forced to choose between turning around and landing straight ahead. Better news yet is that this likely will never happen to you. After all, such catastrophic events only happen to the other guy.
