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 (dubbed "the impossible turn") is complex; while a 2017 document strongly advised against it, a 2018 advisory circular now requires instructors to teach the maneuver under specific, high-altitude conditions and with significant caveats.
The article advocates for "range awareness," a strategy where a pilot's options for emergency landing expand with altitude, moving from only straight ahead at very low altitudes (below 400 ft AGL) to potentially a 180-degree turn at higher altitudes (above 1200 ft AGL).
Ultimately, survival is the objective, and pilots must prioritize pre-briefed options and acknowledge that attempting a 180-degree turn is extremely challenging and rarely successful, especially at low altitudes where landing straight ahead on the best available surface is often the safest course of action.

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?