All,
This is a good constructive conversation and many have had great points on both sides. Sounds to me like several have decided this way or that is the best way to go.
Please forgive just one more point of view...

Everyone has to make their own decision and I dont' think there is one right answer for everyone.

I for one want I want to know how many feet of altitude I need to make a safe 180 Deg turn without power considering factors such as, TO weight, wind, bank angle, airspeed, airport, terrain, # of years since last practiced 180 dead stick turn ect...

I will practice this safely at altitude until I could do it in my sleep. I may then practice it above a little used airport at a safe altitude noting the simulated field elevation, most likely 2000 or more feet above the field. I will decide that later.
Obviously there are many different Lancair models that will have radically different #'s.
My me in my 235 may need 600 feet maybe more, while a loaded 4P may take 1800 or maybe it is 2000 or more or whatever. The idea here is to predetermine what your # is for you with a safety margin. Then you know. If you are below that # don't give the 180 turn back to the airport another thought when the motor goes quiet and take what is available to you. If you practice the turn at altitude and keep proficient at it, you have dramatically increased your odds of a favorable outcome.

So, I will find out for me. Then in the unlikely event I ever have an engine failure on take off I just glance at the altimeter and do the quick math to see if I am at or above my safe 180 deg turn altitude. Better yet, I will add it to my take off check list then I will already be looking for that magic # on climb out. That way I can quickly know how much of a turn I have altitude for and can then focus my attention to getting the best possible outcome with what I have to work with. Everyone will have a safe turning altitude. It will vary from pilot to pilot even in the same plane.
The whole point here is to safely find out what yours is.

 At this moment, I have no idea how much I would need and am one of those guys that say 30 deg left or right but would be tempted to try the turn if faced with the scenario.

I believe knowledge and safe practice will result in proficiency.
Solid proficiency IMHO is key to having a favorable outcome in any emergency.

Sorry to keep beating the horse...
Best all,
Randy L. Snarr
235/320
N694RS

LEON SMITH <lsmith541@msn.com> wrote:

Dom,

I believe you are a wise and cautious pilot.  I totally agree with you on this one.

 

Leon Smith
Dry Creek Airpark
LNCE N63LS

----- Original Message -----

From: Dominic V Crain

To: lml@lancaironline.net

Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:52 PM

Subject: Re: Turn back to the Airport after engine failure

Bill,

If this works for you, I think that is one aspect. However, there is too much evidence in the numerous Lancair accident profiles to suggest that a blanket recommendation that a turnback to the airfield at low level after a complete engine failure is massively unwise. I consider low level to be not less than 500’. If terrain and or development is an issue, it’s got to be higher than 500’. I don’t want to drop in uninvited.

As much as I don’t like to disagree with my fellow listers, I must to do so on this matter, as it is too important especially for new entry/inexperienced Lancair pilots to accept without understanding the fact that they are flying so close to the edge in such a manoeuvre there is NO room for error, pilot induced or not. Such an error can almost be guaranteed to produce a visit to the mortician.

To suggest that timid pilots ( I’m one), can practice this manoeuvre “without risk” is downright dangerous, especially if you are suggesting this practice at low level.

The accident profiles of Lancairs even without an apparent turnback indicate the stall/spin scenario is extremely high, and to be candid, suggesting the manoeuvre be a part of normal EFTO briefing is, in my view, folly.

Scott ( Grayhawk) is correct I believe, in his suggestion that a mindset along the lines he suggested is vital as to how to deal with any failure after take-off. I believe however, that the environment aspect shifts from airfield to airfield, and it is necessary to profile the landscape into the mindset for each one. In some cases, where houses are snuggled into the fence line, it’s almost impossible to know beforehand the best case for the situation, but you can be sure there will be a street or road under somewhere ahead, with limited lateral manoeuvring to reach it, which has at least some better chance of forced landing than a low level turnback.

Cheers.

 

Dom

 

VH-CZJ