Yesterday, in Part I of this article, I talked about the “Impossible Turn,” the risky maneuver of attempting to turn back to the runway after a takeoff engine failure. The article must have struck a nerve, as I think it generated more reader comments, which you can read here, than any previous article. A couple of commenters were Chief Flight Instructors. One was a regional 2008 CFI of the Year. Some had thousands of flying and teaching hours. Remarkably—and how often do you see this in aviation—they all agreed! If the engine quits on takeoff LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD! It’s not worth risking your life to try to...
make make a 180° turn to return to the airport, unless perhaps you have a LOT of altitude. One Chief Pilot said his minimum altitude for turning back is 1,000 feet. I agree, that’s my minimum also.
Sadly, one commenter related a fatality at his airport where someone killed themselves trying to return to the airport. So while flight instructors generally agree that you should land straight ahead, pilots continue to kill themselves by attempting to turn back to the airport. It’s tragic and it’s something that needs more emphasis in flight training. Yet a few flight instructors continue to demonstrate a low altitude, 180° turn back to the runway. In any other industry, this would be malpractice resulting in sanctions. The evidence is clear that even CFIs kill themselves demonstrating the maneuver. It should only be demonstrated thousands of feet above the runway.
Speak Up So People Don't Die
My father was a small town doctor. It seemed apparent to me that the docs in town stuck together and would rarely rat each other out. Behavior had to be particularly egregious before a doc got called on the carpet.
To some extent—thankfully to a much lesser degree—pilots and CFIs are also reluctant to engage with their peers when they observe questionable behavior. This can be particularly tragic as I realized after a friend of mine crashed killing several friends of mine. He was in his 70’s and I hadn’t flown with him for 5 years at the time of the crash. Yet after the crash, friends who had flown with him more recently mentioned they had observed things about his flying which concerned them. Yet NONE of them mentioned their concerns to anyone before the crash. That bothers me to this day, as he was a dear friend and I’m sure he would have listened to concerns if they’d been raised to him. Tragically, no one was comfortable speaking up.
Years ago, I too wouldn’t have spoken up either. But I’ve long since decided that I would rather occasionally tick someone off or even lose a friend than stand by idly knowing that someone’s risky behavior could lead to their death or the death of others. I’d like to encourage—and empower—all readers to do the same. If you see risky behavior, talk to the person and let them know that you care and that they should at least consider a safer alternative.
My Letter Regarding the Impossible Turn
When I watched a CFI demonstrate a low altitude “Impossible Turn” to a student pilot in March, I had to do something. Here’s the email that I sent to the flying club. Below is the response I received. If there are more effective ways to write letters like this please let me know. And if you see risky behavior, please write a letter of your own!
Hi,
This is for the Chief Pilot. I apologize that I don’t know to whom I’m writing. I used to belong to [flying club] 15 years ago, but haven’t had any connection with the club in recent years. I just wanted to let you know that yesterday I observed one of your planes perform what I and many others consider is a very dangerous practice. I teach primarily at [flying club] and one of our planes was destroyed a year ago teaching this maneuver. Two years ago in southern California, a CFI and student were killed teaching the maneuver.
Yesterday, at about 1:50PM, I saw NXXXXX take off from runway 31, climb to what I guess was about 500 feet, cut the engine, and enter a 45° bank turn to return to runway 13. The CFI then announced over the tower frequency “It worked."
A lot of things get passed down in aviation from instructor to instructor, and I’m sure the CFI demonstrating it learned it that way. [CFI name] at [flying school] learned it that way and used to teach it to his students, but after destroying an aircraft and researching the subject, he is convinced that it’s dangerous and should not be taught at low altitude. Most CFIs I know agree.
I read the FAA’s Impossible Turn brochure http://www.sjflight.com/images/Impossible%20Turn.pdf many years ago and have always felt that teaching a student that it’s safe to consider returning to the airport at low altitude after an engine failure was a dangerous practice. You may recall that there was an accident at Livermore about a year ago in which an aircraft took off from Rwy 25, had an engine failure, turned back to the runway and crashed at the threshold killing both pilots. The sad thing is that they were surrounded by fields and a golf course and had plenty of places to land straight ahead.
While a CFI might pull off the maneuver successfully some of the time (and I’ve just given you local examples where a CFI didn’t pull it off), less experienced pilots are less likely to succeed on their own with this dangerous maneuver.
Yesterday, the winds were 350° at 7 knots. This headwind on takeoff kept the airplane closer to the runway and provided a direct tailwind as the plane returned to the field. Even so, the aircraft just barely made it back to the runway. Hopefully, the CFI delivered the message that this is a dangerous maneuver that just barely worked when performed by an experienced pilot with favorable winds on a cool day. The same CFI probably wouldn’t have succeeded on a warm summer day with calm winds.
I fear that instead the client took away the message that if he loses an engine at low altitude that he should return to the runway. This would be the wrong message, as this kind of behavior has been killing pilots for decades with no end in sight. If a CFI wants to perform the maneuver, good industry practice is to do it a few thousand feet above the runway, and the message should be that it’s an unsafe maneuver to perform at low altitude and that pilots should land more or less straight ahead after an engine failure.
If you disagree, and feel that this is a safe maneuver for your CFIs to teach, I strongly encourage you to research the subject and perhaps contact [CFI name] to learn more about his experience. Thank for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Max Trescott
2008 National CFI of the Year
Later, I heard informally that my letter was discussed at the club’s CFI meeting and the CFI eventually agreed that “maybe this shouldn’t be taught to a low time student.” Just a couple of days ago, I received the first formal response, an email from the aircraft’s owner:
Thanks for sending this email - I didn't know it was sent until recently.
I am a [flying club] CFI and the owner of the airplane in question. I was not the CFI in the airplane at the time and date of this event, but I do appreciate you bringing this to our attention. We discussed this at length at our last CFI meeting. While opinions varied, most did agree that this is not a good idea, and all agreed that no matter how you slice it, trying to teach an inexperienced student this maneuver is asking for trouble.
We made up some hard altitude and location rules for teaching this maneuver. If those rules are followed, such an event shouldn't recur.
Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention and let me know if you see anything similar in the future.
What more could you ask for? A discussion among CFIs about the relevant merits of a particular maneuver and development of rules for how it should be taught. Hopefully this will prevent any future fatal accidents of this type among their students.
So what can you do to help eliminate “Impossible Turn” accidents at your airport or flight school? Please submit your ideas in the comments section. Then take a friend flying this weekend and have some fun!
Why not survey airports to pick suggested places to set down in the event of an engine failure on takeoff, and make that part of the general information available about each airport?
Posted by: Mark Davis | May 08, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Max - very well stated. I recently presented Arlynn McMahon's Takeoff, Approach, and Landing seminar in Santa Rosa and we discussed this topic: 1000' or higher before even considering a turn back. On virtually every takeoff with a student I ask "what would you do if the engine quits" at about 400-500' agl. I want them to think about it every single time (and me too!). I also suggested that, for an approach to a long runway in a single engine aircraft, you don't need to "aim for the numbers". The point being if the engine quits on final, you can still glide to the flatness of the airport environment (or even the runway). Unfortunately not everyone attended the seminar and the very next day a C-210 flipped just short of the runway after losing power on final. The pilot tried to stretch the glide and stalled 40 feet in the air, hit nose first and flipped. No injuries but the aircraft is totaled. Although we never know what our reaction might be in a similar circumstance, I tell all my students to keep flying and head for a flat spot, even if you can not make it all the way to the runway! Thanks for your great posts on this.
Posted by: Jim McCord | May 13, 2009 at 03:45 PM