Note before reading further that I'm asking this question purely on theoretical grounds, though you are more than welcome to talk about practical aspects as well.
Now, my question. It's common knowledge amongst many pilots that turnbacks are one of the least safe methods of attempting to survive an engine failure in a single engine aircraft. However, is it actually possible at all to turnback an aircraft to return to the airport perimeter or the runway? How much of it is simply pilot error in executing a possible manoeuvre, as opposed to pilots thinking that they can pull something off that is just impossible, no matter what?
For the purposes of this question, we shall assume the following:
Alternatively, if you have any other information that is more akin to a real aircraft, you can use that in lieu of this information.
Sources or an explanation as to why this it is or isn't impossible would be appreciated in your answers.
It is "remotely feasible", you can watch this pilot story from AOPA about someone who did it. But, that doesn't mean that you or anyone else will be successful in attempting it because of the large number of variables that you mentioned. And one successful execution does not mean that it's a good idea in general.
One suggestion I've read several times is to try it yourself in the air: set the 'ground' at say 3000agl then try it out with whatever aircraft configurations you like and see what the results are. But even if you pull it off in those conditions, will you do it again in a real situation with the added stress and possibly additional weight (passengers, luggage) in the aircraft?
All in all, based on everything I've read and been told, it's called the impossible turn for a reason. My training anecdote from an instructor was a local pilot flying with his son who tried it, made the turn but stalled out, crashed on the runway, made it out of the aircraft but then had to watch his son burn to death in the wreckage. That sort of story makes a landing in a field or even a street seem very attractive, which was exactly my instructor's intention.
The reason that we are trained to simply not turn back is the same reason we memorize and drill the instant action items in emergency checklists. When the stuff hits the fan, you don't have time to think about all the possibilities of your actions. Your initial response time is critical to a successful outcome. Especially when you're already low and slow. And in an actual emergency situation, your chances of responding correctly are severely diminished if you have to think about what you're doing. You should KNOW what you'll do before it happens.
$V_1$ cuts in a multi-engine aircraft are a great example of making an instant decision that may seem counter-intuitive. If an engine stops before you hit $V_1$ speed, you abort. Otherwise, you know for a fact that once you reach $V_1$ speed, you will continue that takeoff, even if one of your engines fail. You'll deal with the emergency in the air, where it's safer and you have time to run the drill. Turning back to the airport falls into the same category. Turning back may seem attractive, but if you're still in takeoff phase, your chances of success are much smaller if you try a tight bank in a slow, low aircraft.
There's a very good discussion of the "impossible turn" at the following link:
It goes into an AIAA study using a flight simulator with new and experienced pilots and it shows that while it's technically feasible, pilots need to train for it and be very strict with their bank angle.
There's a lot of detail in the link that's hard to summarize, but the gist is that most untrained pilots fail and crash in a simulator, so unless you've practiced it, it's not worth trying.
The answer is yes and no. If at a sufficient altitude, a return to the airport is feasible. If a suitable landing spot is in front of you that is the best option. You MUST know your aircrafts limitations and your skill level to determine when it is safe to return to the airport.
It is not only remotely feasible it is very possible. One of our club members departed a sea-level airport and reached 6,500 feet altituce when the engine quit. He turned back and landed on the runway he departed from. He actually landed long and over-ran the runway.
Now try that at 500 feet above runway altitude and you won't be able to make it.
So where you are when the fan stops is important, as is your skill level. Get with a CFI and practice this!
Nobody mentioned the theory so far, so I'll try to fill in.
Disclaimer: The below calculations and estimates are based on what I know about the physics involved. I don't know whether they are actually mentioned in pilot operating handbook of any aircraft.
To successfully turn back, you after climbing at best climb rate, when the engine quits you push down, execute the turn at suitably slightly higher speed to maintain the angle of attack and glide back.
The rate of climb is thrust/weight minus lift/drag, the glide rate is just lift/drag.
Glide rate in the turn is higher by factor depending on the bank angle (coordinated turn; uncoordinated turn is always worse). Calculating best glide rate turn leads to bank angle should be around 45°, speed should be about 19% higher to maintain best glide angle of attack and about 41% higher rate of descent than in straight glide. According to the article linked in the other answer, flying at just above stall speed (which is also 19% higher than in straight flight) should be better due to tighter circle despite worse lift/drag ratio.
The radius, and thus length of the turn of course depends on speed. At 110 knots (true speed, not indicated) the turn will take about 1.4 nm, at 160 knots it will already be about 3 nm. At 60 knots it will only be 0.42 nm. Since you need to maintain indicated speed, the true speed will slightly increase with altitude.
So for the turn back to be possible the plane needs to have sufficient power to climb faster than it will descend in the glide and you have to be high enough to allow for the extra gliding distance (which due to higher rate of descent corresponds to even longer straight glide).
All or most planes will have sufficient thrust at sea level to climb faster than they descend in glide. But since thrust decreases with altitude and temperature, if your departure point is high or warm enough, it may no longer be the case.
Even if the thrust is sufficient, the distance between climb and glide profile starts at zero on lift-off and will only become sufficient to cover the extra miles in the turn above some altitude. The altitude depends on many factors mentioned above.
It's not reasonable to try it without knowing what altitude is needed for it at current conditions.
Interesting question, especially as I'm learning to fly just now.
My pre-flight abort briefing with the CFI is that if we lose power below 700ft AGL, we're going to land on a suitable field 20° off the nose (after pitching for best-glide speed, 68kts in our plane). However, above 700ft AGL, I'm being taught that we are going to pitch for best-glide and turn to the airport and land at "any available runway". The plane we're flying is C172S and we have never tried this at the airport, but in the air we did 360° turns with idle engine and 68 kts with only about ~300ft lost altitude. I was truly surprised about that.
I'm still uneasy about returning to the field, though.
I saw a Rallye perform a successful turn back at Bembridge. Probably preferable to ditching. I still wouldn't try it.
Apart from the actual physical feasibility discussed in other answers the main risk is a stall situation during the turn.
Winch-launching of gliders is a situation where "power loss" in form of a rope-break is quite common and the reaction to this situation is one of the most importand drills during your training.
Apart from the initial speed and AoA recovery, the decision to turn or not is rather crucial, but when turning you have to take utter care of your speed to avoid stalling. This may be even worse for motor pilots, because you might want to keep banking with a "normal" horizon reference as usual, which can be a bad idea if you are lacking the necessary power to sustain that.
knowledge amongst many pilots that turnbacks are one of the least safe methods of attempting to survive an engine failure in a single engine aircraft. However, is it actually possible at all to turnback... that is just impossible, no matter what? For the purposes of this question, we shall assume the following: there is only one runway, so a reciprocal turn is required (we shall assume 210 degrees) the aircraft has a flaps up stall speed at MTOW of 75 knots the aircraft has a best glide ratio of 1:12 at 100 knots Alternatively, if you have any other information that is more akin to a real aircraft
, of course) giving us a series of most likely positions at 3:11AM, 4:11AM, 5:11AM, etc. If the trajectory of these sequence of spaces has a N/S directionality, we can say with some confidence... if the plane most likely went along the S or the N arc we see in reports. Unfortunately, only the last ping (at 8:11AM) is available publicly. Here is the basic idea on extracting the information... information available. For example, from the ping circles separated by one hour, we can get plausible directions the plane may have taken. Why isn't anyone pursuing this line of analysis
When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS. This "mushing" went on for what seemed ages before I eventually applied power and pushed the nose down to gain airspeed again. We tried it again after that and the same thing happened. I had an instructor
Provided an aircraft with a fly-by-wire system, there are basically two possible choices when it comes deciding how to let the pilots interface with it: rate control / attitude hold: a deflection... how Airbus and Boeing made their design decisions, but rather see if there has been performed a study on what interface is preferred by pilots, eventually differentiating among private/commercial pilots or Airbus/Boeing certified pilots or even pure civil/(former) military pilots. Does any of you have any reference?
— (1) Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. (2) Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots. (3) Category C: Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots. (4) Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots. (5) Category E: Speed 166 knots or more. So an aircraft category never changes because it is always Vref at max landing weight. What if I fly an approach at a speed that falls into a different category? For instance, a jet may land at significantly less than this speed if very light, or more than this speed if landing with less
are used to communicate between the aircraft and its base. Various types of messages are possible, for example, relating to fuel consumption, engine performance data, aircraft position, in addition to free text. So, questions: Can ACARS be turned off? Would this generate a warning at the base station? Can ACARS send postion, altitude and heading information automatically? Can ACARS be repeatedly pinged to track an aircraft's position and heading? Would this require any intervention by the pilots? (posted separately) Is this system standard on commercial airliners? What data do Airlines collect
by the pilots per this question however on more than one occasion I don't hear read back on critical vector info on departure, despite the visual confirmation of instruction (pilot making proper vector... instruction acknowledgement? (Other than read back?) Is it possible that the reply is somehow on a different frequency? Is this just a problem with LiveATC? (One theory is that A/C leaves receiver coverage area and that's why I don't hear reply, however on approach side much bigger distances are heard in my area) Thank you I did verify that indeed the aircraft that I don't hear read back from receives
It's easy to go online and look at prices of a Cessna 172, but what are some examples of how to breakdown the real world costs of ownership? how much other maintenance should you plan for? How much does an engine overhaul cost? Insurance hangar etc.. It would be great to also get some typical costs and ranges, since some element are more predictable than others. Obviously the costs will vary based on individual aircraft and location, as well as over time, but I'm looking for information that would help someone make the buy/rent decision. Prices can also vary geographically. I'm asking
and then maintain straight and level for a good 3 to 5 minutes once you got past 12,000 (so people have oxygen to breathe when they jump). And if you can descend and maintain level flight, you might as well land. But what about in a light, single engine plane (think Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee)? Engine failures in small aircraft, for example, seem to be more common, so you have more... out? It seems like a somewhat practical solution, yet I have never heard of anyone doing it. Why do pilots often try to find a road to land on or a lake to ditch in when trouble strikes instead
Is there a legal definition of a "cycle" on a jet engine? We must log the cycles, and some maintenance is determined by cycles. From my understanding, this is partially because of the thermal dynamics of an engine cooling and then reheating, and partially because full takeoff power is used. The "usual" time that you log a cycle is when an engine is started and the aircraft then takes off (using full rated takeoff power), but what about unusual situations like: Engine shutdown and restarted in flight Engine started, aircraft takes off, and then returns for a low pass or a touch and go