All Or Nothing?

The question is as old as the powered aviation itself: Assuming a single-engine airplane, if power is lost immediately after takeoff, should you land straight ahead or try to get back to the airport? This magazine has often addressed the question, including a January 2006 article by spinmeister Rich Stowell. Rich detailed the results of a simulator-based study examining "the feasibility of successfully executing a 180-degree turnaround following an engine failure at 500 feet agl." The study concluded that practicing the maneuver boosted its success rate, but landing straight ahead (or nearly so) had a higher success rate.

Tom Turner

Thursday, October 03, 2019 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Delta and United Airlines both reported having to cancel flights on Christmas Eve. [Courtesy: Delta]

Key Takeaways:

The FAA's guidance on attempting a 180-degree turn back to the runway after engine failure post-takeoff has shifted; while previously deemed "impossible," instructors are now required to teach it, emphasizing specific conditions like altitude, pilot skill, and best glide requirements.
Pilots should employ "range awareness," understanding that landing options after engine failure vary significantly with altitude; straight ahead is typically the only viable option below ~400 ft AGL, while a return to the runway might be possible above ~1200 ft AGL.
The ultimate objective is survival, meaning the decision is not an "all-or-nothing" choice but a dynamic assessment of the best available option based on altitude and pre-briefed knowledge of the surrounding terrain.

See a mistake? Contact us.

The question is as old as the powered aviation itself: Assuming a single-engine airplane, if power is lost immediately after takeoff, should you land straight ahead or try to get back to the airport? This magazine has often addressed the question, including a January 2006 article by spinmeister Rich Stowell. Rich detailed the results of a simulator-based study examining “the feasibility of successfully executing a 180-degree turnaround following an engine failure at 500 feet agl.” The study concluded that practicing the maneuver boosted its success rate, but landing straight ahead (or nearly so) had a higher success rate.

For decades the FAA tried to make the decision for us, dubbing the return-to-runway attempt “the impossible turn.” It’s never worth the risk, the FAA told us. Yet, current FAA guidance still requires instructors to train pilots on maneuvering back to the runway in the event of engine failure. Should we land straight ahead, or turn back to the runway? Is returning to the runway following a power loss after takeoff an all-or-nothing decision?