Real Pilot Story: The Impossible Turn 

Well, i guess as it was his "home airport" they had familiarity with ATC controllers, so they knew that he was an experienced pilot and so they let him do it himself, still ATC can give crucial information especially in a time of an emergency, so that you could maneuver to an emergency landing as safe as possible, although sometimes, if miscommunication happen, things can go south...

OMG you hadn't thought of this before? It's something I ALWAYS do, and have done since my second flight.

@@noelletakesthesky3977 Yeah that's odd, that's part of every pre-takeoff checklist / passenger briefing: What we are going to do if we lose the engine at various altitudes/points in the takeoff

Burntsider lol!

Not true.

Ignorance is fun for some.. You should learn that turn already..Wimpy..

Hah. "And how long will that take?" "The rest of my life." (Seriously, there are positions where this turn can be made from, but you may not be in one of them when you lose power).

@@johnlewis1113 it is an energy relation...therefore a drag and wind relation...ultimately a glide relation. I would say simply the pilot should know how much altitude it takes to make a 180 as a function of bank and flap configuration. What airspeed is required to keep flying...well above stall...and the consequences of an uncoordinated turn at low airspeed. The very first issue is that you don't want to stall. So you need to get the plane level with flaps up and feather the prop if possible. Second is to have room to align on a runway and then turn and line up without stalling the plane in the turn. So you're eithet going to run out of altitude in the turn or short of the runway or land long possibly downwind with a low airspeed. Two of those three conditions call for no flaps, the last does call for flaps. So yes you can either get the plane around or you can't....which means there is a minimum altitude below which you don't try a 180. But still there may be an alternate runway or taxiway which is possible. Even 135 deg or 90 or 45 deg might do the trick if your takeoff is in the right place. A hard and fixed rule against even trying really means that in general pilots are too incompetent to do it without stalling.

Complete agreement with you. A left turn to runway 30 was a better choice anyway. This pilot had not prebriefed himself on correct engine out options.

@NonyaBusiness! It was a thrust barrier rather than trees - just watched it :)

NonyaBusiness! - I recently saw exactly that video. Hard to imagine being that PIC grimly hanging on for an off-field crash/landing, only to be saved by a couple seconds of perfectly-timed engine life. Hail Mary!

The problem with that hypothesis is he did not have any power remaining as evidenced by the fact he said he pulled the mixture to cut-off because he wanted to stop the prop but it kept windmilling. So in fact, what he had was the total oopposite of some power remaining, what he had was a lot of drag from a prop windmilling at fine pitch. And yet even with that extra drag he more than made it back to the field. In fact he just narrowly avoided overshooting it.

One person: "the impossible turn is just that, so don't try it." Another person: "the impossible turn is possible, here's a demo." Both are right, both are wrong. The turn is possible, but not in all cases, in all aircraft. As with anything, it's just not that simple. There are so many factors such as runway length, runway remaining, density altitude, aircraft performance (glide ratio, airspeed, climb rate), skill of the pilot, takeoff profile flown (Vy, Vx, cruise climb, short field TO, etc), flaps or no flaps, bank angle and turn rate, coordinated or uncoordinated turn, altitude at engine failure, reaction time, wind speed and direction, and more. I've done the math on different aircraft to try to identify minimum criteria for making the turn (assuming no mistakes like uncoordinated turns and flying the correct airspeeds and bank angles), and under the right circumstances (specific to each aircraft and how it was flown on takeoff) many aircraft could do it. But that's the problem. There are so many variables to consider all at once, in the moment, in a split second, and most pilots are not aware of them nor have spent any time pondering them. I can analyze specific situations and determine what is possible, or even identify some general guidelines to help identify if it Might be possible for a specific aircraft, and then pad those guidelines so people don't try to use them to justify an attempt when they make not have the skills given the margin for error. But in the end there are just too many variables that must be accounted for. Each pilot will have to judge for themselves in the moment depending upon their exact position, familiarity with the aircraft, and other variables in the moment. For those who've not spent enough time thinking about it seriously, I advise to generally commit to landing straight ahead (within 30deg left or right of runway heading). When in doubt, always resign to land the plane under control, "straight" ahead, wings level, and fly it as far into the crash as possible (if you weren't able to find a suitable landing site and make a successful landing). Odds of survival are very good under those circumstances, and the insurance and such can be sorted out later. Your life (and the life of your passengers) is worth more than the airplane.

Excellent advice on drifting the airplane to the side of the runway in the case of having to turn around.

Cool post, Tim. For the right-hand turn debate, I have a question on Left Turning Tendencies in low/no power settings: Would turning left in this case take advantage of a single-engine plane's natural tendency to roll and yaw left? Or would the main forces affecting the AC during flight -- Spiraling slipstream, P-factor, Torque effect, and Gyroscopic precession -- be minimal in low power settings? Maybe I'm over thinking it, but I wonder if a left turn would help squeeze a little more speed and elevation out of the plane on low power settings, since the airplane tends to roll and yaw left anyway? Or, are the combined effects on low power so small that they don't matter? Appreciate your thoughts. Thanks again. BTW: Lucky you flying gliders. :-)

@@mickcraven980 I prefer, if all else is equal, a left turn, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Seated in the left seat, a left turn affords much better visibility, situational awareness, and immediate knowledge of geo-spatial context in an emergency. The relative ease of a left versus right powered turn is not a factor to me. And in a no-power engine-out scenario, I presume that all left-turning forces fall to - or close to - zero. Given the facts presented in this video, the left-hand turn RTR would have been FAR preferable to what this pilot did. I repeat my Monday morning QB mantra: this pilot did not consider low altitude engine-out scenarios before he advanced the throttle. The four left-turning forces you mentioned do raise an interesting academic and thought-provoking question though. Presuming a clockwise turning prop (standard in single engine prop-driven planes in North America and elsewhere), the no-power, no-usable-thrust wind-milling prop is creating large turbulence, and hence drag. In this induced-drag situation the force equations for spiraling slipstream, torque, and p-factor reverse and must introduce (slight) turning forces to the right. Only the gyroscopic force remains to the left because the prop still windmills clockwise, though much more slowly than when powered. Presumably the gyroscopic force will be weaker in the no-power circumstance. How do all these no-power forces balance out in the AC? I have no earthly clue.

@@timyarrow8844 Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Visibility is a great point so close to the pattern. Figured the low power settings wouldn't have much effect on the turn, but your experience is way better than my guess. I can't tell how much power Dave Keller was actually pulling on 3 cylinders. He mentioned pulling the mixture but not stopping the prop, though it sounds like he's adding power in some places. As for stopping the prop, at what point is that a good idea? If it's spinning fast enough, I assume it's creating at least some thrust. Can you tell by the plane's attitude if he's getting some power?

we don't care how many hours you have

I have.

Bartonovich52 proof or shut the fuck up.

@@theretep6494 Sit down son

Little is scarier than your only engine dying on takeoff/initial climb. Happened to our plane when the fuel valve wasn't latched all the way and closed itself right at V2. Lucky it happened so early as the plane still had enough room to stop on the end of the runway.

Gliders tend to have about 5 times the glide ratio of a powered single-engine.

350 agl Turnback? Only if he had some power left on engine. Or, had a strong headwind. Big chance if not. Better have both. I taught Turnbacks when CFI. On many airports and kinds of airplanes. Yes, including on Trawmahawks, at night also.

as a glider pilot, AND a PPL, I do 200 foot rope breaks too. But in my C172, my impossible turn height (practised and proven) is 400 if considerably under gross, 450 at gross. I KNOW what I can do if I have to do it. PRACTISE is the answer.

@@MrZrryan2 Just so. I'm a glider and PP certificate holder. My power instructor made me practice the "impossible turns" in a 152 (400' bingo altitude) and 172 (500' bingo) frequently until my sphincter unclenched. I always thought the gliders (Grob Twin III Acro in this case) made the 180 turn RTR more easily from 200 feet than the Cessna from 400 feet. I think the explanation for that is that 1) 38:1 l/D in glider, plus 2) the tow speed is at least 25 knots above min control speed, and you can trade some of that for either a smidge more altitude or a snappier 180 turn. By comparison, the Cessnas always felt mushy threatening to fall out of the sky. More than the glider, speed and turn coordination in the Cessnas were paramount.

@@MrZrryan2 400 agl minimum IF a strong wind to help you climb steeper angle and after turnback to help you glide back. If partial power, after troubleshooting engine, i had turnback from 300 agl on C172 with 2 on board only. But that is the do it or die minimum at partial power..

On the turn back you could see how close to the trees he was, but he resisted the impulse to pull the stick back.

@@flightforensics4523 what did you do for the ntsb?

AOPA ASI dont know much about this turnback. The just follow the ignorants advise. The ones that dont know much about it, but talk a lot. One of my former student with 70 hours total did a turnback from 300 agl when lost a cylinder and could not climb anymore over 300 agl due had 2 more adults on board. I have more stories. I taught 3 kinds of turnbacks when CFI in the 1990's..

Lower or higher DA? Cold air is denser than warm air.

@@eracer1111 I think Eric's comment is correct even though it's an odd way of stating it. i.e. the cold temps made for a "lower effective altitude". The "density" and "lower" sort of throws a logic curve at you. Would be a good 'trick question' on a test.

@@PelicanIslandLabs -- Actually he was high and needed to do an S turn on short final. higher temp he could make it too If kept Vglide well instead of Vminimum sink with stall warning too close. Vglide needed there, not Vms...

JohnnyG So then is Eric Taylor’s conclusion correct about the survivability of this turn at warmer temperatures? Is the aircraft at a lower effective altitude because of the cold air or a higher effective altitude because of the cold air?

@@DaRyteJuan he is correct that a lower temperature means a lower "density altitude". For every 1 degree Celsius under standard temperature air (15 degrees) there is a 100 foot decrease in density altitude. Whether he is correct in his assessment regarding the plane having stalled had it been warmer, I have no idea.

You should hear the stall warner close to the ground on every single landing. You're landing it too fast otherwise. You should get up to a safe altitude and MEASURE the difference between the speed your stall horn sounds, and your actual stall speed. You should PRACTISE flying with the stall horn just about beeping at you, in level flight and in turns. And you should MEASURE your height loss starting from full power climb, closing the throttle and then turning 180 degrees at 45 degrees angle of bank at max rate without stalling. Then you can figure out whether it's safe to turn back at a given height on departure from any airfield. Obviously, give yourself a margin, but learn to fly your aircraft. No excuses.

Sean L gave me some shivers too Scary situation

He appeared to react accordingly with each warning, lowering nose.

Stall sound is totally normal for GA near touchdown

Why, I always hear a stall horn when I flare to land.?

thats what i was thinking

Always plan ahead what to do if engine fails on take off..

I was thinking of the same thing.. runway 30 looks like a safer bet. Unless maybe if there where people and houses he would fly over and potentially put them in danger if he stalled..

Yup, I remember preflight briefings with my instructor. He would always have 3 options, one for very low altitude failures near rotate to land on the remaining runway, then the next level was straight ahead in the surrounding land, and third was a 180 once high enough to complete.

Agree entirely. That smidgen of power and the temp. kept him aloft at least a handful of seconds more, and likely more than that.

He pulled the mixture, effectively killing the engine. The windmilling prop then created drag, not thrust. He admitted his error on that: trying to save the engine.

Bulgdoom very good point...so obvious NOW that you point it out. Thank you.

I'm not a pilot, but as far as I know, you don't have to land on the runway. I mean, if you don't turn back, you won't land on the runway anyway. Landing on grass is also possible, he could have gone straight ahead after 4:44.

once you make the one 180, the next best thing to do is make the shortest line to the runway. That is, don't worry about lining up early, just fly direct to the runway and worry about getting straight once you are assured you have made it. There is no need to make a straight in landing once you've made the one Eighty. Just go for the runway in the shortest distance possible. Of course it will take more than 180 degrees, but it need not be much more, especially when you are right on top of it. You can even straighten out in the flare and make the last 25 degrees of turn as if you were making a crosswind landing. Who says you have to make a straight in from a quarter mile away?

I think they just call it a "180" to indicate you are returning to the same place you started out from behind you

Glad you're alright. Maybe this channel should make a video about your crash?

@@TechInspected I've had a few. My favorite was I had just taken off, cleared the lines and bang. I thought someone fired a shotgun in my ear it was so loud. Instinctively I dropped the collective and auto rotated into a field. 1 problem it was really a bullpen. Every time my friend and I tried to make a run for it the bull would run up and stick its horns into the ground. I have no idea what that even means. We had the doors off and I was wondering if the bull figured it out we may be in trouble. Finally I said to my friend you go that way I'll go this way and hopefully he'll be confused. So we ran for the fences. Fortunately it started after my buddy 1st. I'm as fast as molasses in Antarctica. We got a good laugh about it later. Turns out 3 teeth had broken on the main rotor gear box. The farmer was cool about it. He let us take apart one fence line and the barbed wire fences so we could drag it out. We helped him get it back together. I'll never forget that bull that's for sure. But thanks, God just doesn't want me yet. We called it an off airport landing incident. The FAA agent wanted me to say that it was a crash. I just heard a funny noise and made a precautionary landing. When I handed him my ticket and latest medical he said aha! I'm thinking what did I do. I hadn't signed the back.

I for one agree with you. Some people say NEVER turn back and ALWAYS go straight ahead or a little to the side. If you know your airplane well and it doesn't fly like a rock, there are some occasions when, at the right altitude, it might make the difference between life and death not turning back. There are airports like Linden N.J. near Newark, in highly populated areas where there is nothing but homes and fuel storage tanks straight ahead. Not much of a choice. But if you have a day with a good head wind and are just high enough, a safe turn to a landing can be made. This assumes a completely sudden dead engine after take off. If you are high enough to get the nose down and crank in a steep turn while "unloading" the Gs, your stall speed will not increase. Recall that in a 60 degree bank, the G load factor is twice that of straight and level flight. But that is only true if you are in a level steep turn. If you "unload" the Gs in a steep turn, you can still be at one G and still be at 60 degrees of bank. You will turn very fast but you will also gain a lot of airspeed and lose a lot of altitude. But if you are high enough, it may be better than crashing into somebody's home or a field full of storage tanks. Not everybody flies in the mid-west. Some of us fly in highly populated areas. If that damn tree wasn't in the way, Harrison Ford might have walked away from his plane on the golf course. JMHO.

That guy was an idiot. Dont blame the gun, blame the shooter.

That engine was toast in the first few seconds anyway, you wouldnt want to trust it without a complete teardown and checking everything, it would cheaper to just replace the engine, once you do a tear down to deal with a busted cylinder like that you'd basically have to rebore, put in new pistons and rings, and you wouldnt want to reuse the old bearings with new pistons and so on.

This happened in cold weather. The outcome may have been entirely different if this happened in the summer months.

"I'll never get my pilot license (unless I win the lottery)" You already won the lottery, the grey matter between your ears. You gotta work hard to collect your prize, though.

AMEN.

@@CFITOMAHAWK2--well, this is a good honest CFI, not like many only teaching easy maneuvers and calling themselves great names to cover up their cowardice. I had a few chicken cfi's in my life that gave me BS instead of practicing.

Eric Taylor Never heard it said that way, 'your power sources is gravity...' good point.

It's how my dad (a CFI) put it. Your power source is gravity and your fuel is hight above the ground.

I share your same passion. It is definitely interesting. Much better than sitting in a park watching dogs poop! haha! With 2 sons in flight school I can't get out of this drunken stupor of aviation. Love sitting at the local airport pavilion watching GA aircraft, and listening to the tower and planes talk. The left turn question, can be summed up in a nutshell... it was his preflight decision. Either that or when you're in an emergency situation, shit just happens the way your mind thinks. This was a life/death situation. There was no time to think. Then again if he turned left, there were houses down there not trees. Nice to meet you. :^)

You make it back to a runway alright ?

Dave Shaw I

@@daveshaw9344 Me? Yes, I did. We closed Indy down for a few minutes - I declared an emergency, then was wrestling with the stupid mixture control while Tower was asking where I was. Aviate- navigate- communicate, in that order, so I managed to transmit " 1 mile from runway", and Tower cleared me to land any runway. I landed the opposite direction I took off from on the same runway, just did a steep turn and got myself pointed at the runway, established best glide, then once I had the runway made, dove for it, full flaps, forward slip. Rolled out about 100 feet and stopped. Five fire trucks, each three times bigger than my Cessna, circled me ready to hammer us with their water cannons. Chief pulled up, "you all right", "Yeah"...

That is with power on, the 250 agl turn. With power off, a c206 wont be able to complete the 270 total degrees needed on a Turnback To Opposite. 180 to a parallel runway only if low load, low temp and over Vy before the 180 to paralel runway, I teach 4 kinds of turnbacks on different airplanes..

It does not depend on airfield (unless multiple runways) but only on altitude of occurence and conditions (speed, flaps, windmilling, wind, weight)

600 feet into the wind in that case could be safer... Full flaps after runway made needed with that tailwind.. I have done them with 18 knots tailwind-Cherokee.

@@CFITOMAHAWK I bet you had to also do forward slip with full flaps with such a hard tailwind pushing you to end of runway.

For the cylinder out details read my post replying to Kevin Barnes below..Just my 2 cents...

Probably some power available with THAT failure... but the mix is going to be way off for the other cylinders as they'll pull some air via the broken cylinder. But how do you know which failure you have? Is it safe to try to keep it running or will that turn the aircraft into a flying fireball? Cutting off fuel was a good idea. Using the pitch control to stop the prop might have helped.... But he followed the basic rule of handling an emergency: Aviate Navigate Communicate He managed flying the aircraft to a safe landing and that's what matters the most.

It is possible that the engine would still develop some power. The pilot didn't immediately pull the mixture control. It could have just as easily seized if the break caught the cylinder. About 70 hours after my engine was majored, an incorrectly installed intake balance tube (O-470 R) failed, venting the intake to the atmosphere. This happened at cruise at 7500 feet. I immediately had a rough engine, but "smoothly running" rough engine, sort of like an overlean condition. We lost 20 kts indicated airspeed but were able to hold altitude at about 90 kts with full throttle. My trouble shooting was the usual red checklist procedures: fuel, mags, mixture (no difference), but when I touched the throttle, the engine immediately lost power, so I left the throttle full open until landing was assured. We declared the emergency, circled over an airport rolled out for the runway and touched down. On final with the runway made, the engine quit and in the flare the prop stopped. We touched down and rolled out uneventfully. I am based at a 1700 ft grass strip and I had just practiced a simulated engine out from altitude two weeks before, solo from about 6 miles out to my home field. The engine was producing some power, but likely not in the front two cylinders, the rest were overly leaned. CHTs were cold in the front two cylinders (200 or so), but the remaining 4 cyls were still in the low 300 range. So, this six cylinder engine was capable of producing power with a vented intake system and with likely only 2/3 of the cylinders producing power it was able to maintain altitude and at least some power through final approach and uneventful landing. A second incident with an 0-360-A3A with a partial cylinder crack (club airplane/leaseback) developed enough power to depart, climb to pattern. The pilot realized there was an issue on after the takeoff was anemic, had the sense to remain in the pattern rather than attempting to cross 5 miles of water to the mainland from the island he departed. He elected to remain in the pattern and land. This engine had a partial separation on no. 3, with nowhere near a complete separation as in the mooney. When I discussed the matter with the pilot (a CFI) he reported that the runup and take off roll were normal except the airplane used more runway than he anticipated and climbed slower than he thought it should, but it had power and did fly the pattern at his usual airspeed. The return and landing were uneventful. He restarted and ran the engine up and did a full power run up but the engine did not develop full expected RPM. The club mechanic was dispatched and identified a cracked cylinder, but no separation. The interesting part was that the cylinder compression was normal but when the piston was moved to bottom dead center air flow was heard and felt around the crack. We elected to use new cylinders on future majors because of a number of SDRs reporting cracked high time cylinders for these engines. In both cases, though, the engines were capable of producing power and in the case of the 4 cyl. engine capable of producing take off power.

i have seen engines that kept making power after 1 out of 4 cylinders blew off the aircraft. so no reason to shut it down if you arent 100% sure you got it made.

At my flight school, there is a aircraft, that had at 2 points had a cylinder that either had 1 or 0 working spark plugs (of 2), (I believe from a loose wire), the aircraft could probably still fly on the three other cylinders fine, but you would have lost a little bit more than 1/4 of your power, and that is leaving little margin for error. The cylinder/etc has been replaced to my knowledge.

Think like a multi engine pilot. If engine fails at over this altitude, I will push nose down, turn left, 10 flaps and land on that runway. But if you avoid that brave thinking and coward down you will make a lot of stupid mistakes to regret later on. I would have turned left to that runway too. Yes, done many turnbacks, gliders and Cherokees. Many airports. Since 1992. Had to do one for real from 700 agl. and saved from crashing on houses. 1994.

yes, left would have been much better.

My very first initial thought about why he went right instead of left was possible traffic on the opposing runway that we didn't hear about. Could have been other aircraft either on or approaching it. From what I have gathered from watching many vids (I too am not a pilot) is some of the time 'escape routes' are given by ATC or by standing order from the airport. Just a thought.... But I too had the thought of 'turn left and hit nearest runway' until I gave it more consideration...

under pressure even well trained pilots don't make the best choices, especially after the event when they have had time to analyze.

I agree. In an actual emergency, there are VERY few rules. Every situation is different.

Completely agree. The context of your exact emergency matters everything. The only hard rule I have is that power loss below 400 feet is to look for a straight ahead landing only (200 feet in gliders). That said, I've routinely practiced, with and without instructors engine-out 180 RTR decisions at 400-500 feet in 152, 172, 182, Champs, Super Cubs, Citabria, Bonanza, etc. Sometimes the return is a squeeker. But I applied my soaring experience to power, and worked it out this way: on take-off, I allow my ground-track to drift off the runway centerline with the prevailing wind. Then If/when the engine quits above 400-500 feet, turn 180 INTO the wind and you're pretty well set-up to land straight-ahead on the runway. Sometimes on tight fields I've had to scrub-off excess altitude with a forward slip...something that my jet-pilot CFI's were not anxious to use. Coordinate the controls - keep the ball centered for efficient energy use! Fly best glide until the runway threshold is certain.

Not really, since usually a 180 turn with no engine willtake about 500-800FT since you have to glide and prevent stalling!, and right after takeoff you don't have the speed and not the "best glide speed" so this one was a real risky 180.

JLDoctorWho during my training I had a partial power failure and instinctively did a 180, landed on a cross runway. Straight ahead was nothing but trees. I'm convinced that I made the best decision.

Great video and impressively performed for someone who sounds like he was surprised by the emergency. I try (as I can) to fly as if it's a sim... every takeoff is when, not if, I lose an engine, and if it/they don't fail... great! Every approach is (and I even brief) going to end in a missed approach and if not, and we actually land (99.5% of the time) great! The idea is to mentally rehearse the worst case, as if it's a certainty, then if it happens it's not a mental surprise.

I regularly (at least twice a month) practice engine out with CFI on board. With Zlin Z42 you can forget that turn -- you are going down as a brick (Z42 is my favorite plane nowadays). With Cessna C150 however _if_ conditions are ok you are able to do it as you mentioned. That's a big "if" there, I know. When I practiced it there was practically no wind, temperatures around 25 Celsius and I flew with 1/2 full tanks. What is interesting in this video is that the pilot is quite experienced and did some mistakes. Don't get me wrong, he landed it and that's the main thing. I'm just wondering how would I react if that situation kicks in.

Dont do that Turnback from 500 agl unless you have some reliable power left on engine..which you dont know for sure..I have done that Turnback hundreds of times on diff. airplanes including Tomahawks and many gliders..Be smart..It can kill you if you know only half of what your are supposed to know..Hablo Spanglish too..

Unless you shut the engine completely off, even at idle, it is producing some thrust. Don't get lured into a false sense of circumstances practicing with a different lift/drag profile. The real thing could be quite different.

There is a big difference from knowing it is coming.

Jeff Guckin One should always know it's coming. Pre take off brief will put your head in the game.

Paul Gooding I'm a green as grass LSA pilot, this observation is very helpful - you've 'spent' your options, airspeed, altitude, time, luck, etc...very good. Thanks and keep writing these comments for US novices...

Your point about not knowing what your real situation is until the 180 (or more) is complete is well made. That said, in this *particular* case, it was the pilot's home airport, and even if he didn't make the pavement, the area around the runways are pretty clear. It was not clear there was a better choice straight ahead and the pilot's knowledge of the area looks to have factored it. Also, since it was initially a partial engine failure, he was able to make some of the turn under partial power. Hard for me to agree it was the "wrong choice" for that *particular* pilot in that *specific* set of circumstances. However. I *do* agree it is the wrong choice for *most* GA pilots the *majority* of the time. As a GA pilot I practice engine outs in flight simulator a *lot* (in addition to simulated engine "failures" in real life). One thing that is an eye opener is that when the engine is totally dead, it is *not* the same as at idle power. Glide ratio is noticeable lower in the planes I fly. I think this really adds to the deadly nature of choosing to turn back. I have done this with the flight simulator at all sorts of airports, at different density altitudes and I make it back on the pavement maybe 10% of the time. 20% at some airports that have a cross runway that allows a gentle left turn that lines everything up. That is not a percentage I would risk my life on for sure. I think practicing simulated engine outs with idle power in real aircraft as discussed in other comments gives one a false sense of security with regards to altitude loss in a true engine out scenario. I know that *I* would *never* try a turn back with a full sudden loss of engine. That said, I differ with your conclusion that it was blind luck in this case (although luck plays a factor in any equipment failure - what altitude? Total vs. partial failure, weather etc are all factors)

@@lorencharnley9262 a home airport, knowledge of the area and yet he turned in the worst possible way. Funny.

That was my immediate thought as well.