USMCFLYR

I was reading an article from the recent FLYING magazine and it described a mishap where a Cirrus student and his instructor crashed after attemtping a second "teardrop" turn - in this case it means turning back to the runway which you departed from after a (simulated in this case) engine failure.

I was wondering how many CFIs teach this. I remember being taught to land straight ahead - what was it - about 30 degrees either side of the flight path or so?

The article mentions that the FAA doesn't even consider this a valid maneuver and it is not a requirement for the PPL.

So........I'd like to hear what some of the CFIs out there have to say about this practice. Is there a valid reason? Pros/cons?

USMCFLYR

ryan1234

I can understand a power-off 180... if you're at pattern altitude, but a "teardrop" after take-off is just crazy... I think it even warns against that in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook.

__________________
If Guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat!

de727ups

How many people would be alive today if they just continued straight ahead and made the best of it in a controlled situation?

__________________
Go here to see how I became a UPS pilot:

www.jetcareers.com/content/view/65/132/

Normann

Maybe he was demonstrating that it was not possible and they pushed it too far.

On the other hand I have managed to turn around at 500' with a strong headwind in a C152. I have also seen a Pawne almost making it, but hit the tip on the runway and ended up killing himself. Had he not gone for the concrete but just for the property it would have been survivable, much better than the rooftops. I have even had a DE telling me to just do a half lazy eight. I was scratching my head after hearing that one.

I doubt the majority is teaching the impossible turn. It is for the rare occasion when conditions are just right. It is not privates, especially not for doctors, or lawyers. (joke)

USMCFLYR

[quote]
The story goes that *someone* did one successfully on the duty runway and then requested to do the second one to the reciprocal - and winds seem to be a factor of course. There was later discussion from some **expert** that tried to identify a PROPER way to execute the teardrop and used 800' as a minimum but then again - it still seems that the risk is not worth the reward and statistics seem to prove that out.

USMCFLYR

Normann

[quote=USMCFLYR;454631]I see. Sad story regardless.

meritflyer

That may not always be such a casual luxury as you describe it with respect to the runway's position, the geographical nature of the airport and overall location of the airport.

There are several published studies about turning back to the airport that address stall speeds, altitude, and time factors. If taught correctly, it can be a safe, effective maneuver.

de727ups

"There are several published studies about turning back to the airport that address stall speeds, altitude, and time factors."

Well, please do share them.

If you haven't read the published studies, I'd suggest you forget about the runway behind you if you have an engine failure on takeoff. Save yourself by shooting for the least harmful place in front of you to put the airplane.

If you have read the published studies, be sure to apply them as published in the same situation as they were published.

Can't go wrong with that.

__________________
Go here to see how I became a UPS pilot:

www.jetcareers.com/content/view/65/132/

GunnerV

Power off 180s are part of the COM check ride. A 180 degree power off turn from pattern altitude with an applicant with aprox 200 hrs of flying experience is appropriate. Anything less (either starting altitude or flying experience) is not a valid or safe procedure to teach IMHO.

__________________
GCS left seat

sqwkvfr

The UK-CAA pre-takeoff brief states that we will not attempt to turn back to the runway unless established in the crosswind. Even then, however, one needs to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.