Oh my God. That’s the saddest, scariest thing I’ve read today. 
I’m so sorry.
first, I would have checked the engine oil pressure and temp to see if the engine was toast. then I’d see if it would trim level. But what I would probably do is land in the school parking lot southeast of the airport if I didn’t have confidence in the engine. Fields can really suck with a plane full of people who are not in a seat belt. I’ve experienced a broken impulse coupler and an intake vacuum leak that seriously dipped into the performance of a 150 hp engine. This is in a plane that originally came with 108 hp. If a cylinder goes that usually means a valve dropped and that’s something that can get really ugly. It’s not just the loss of 1/4 of the hp it can mean parts punching through the piston and destroying the engine. An out of balance engine could tear itself off the mounts and now the plane is out of CG and everybody dies. My gut would be to shut it down and take the nearest hard surface.
Thank you.
And thanks to everyone who has replied so far. Magiver, we were still wearing our seatbelts (jump planes are required to have a seatbelt for everyone on board). We never unbuckled them until we were between 1000-2000 feet AGL.
But I don’t know how much good they would have done in a rough landing. Skydivers often thread the seatbelt through a leg strap, which would keep them inside the plane but they would probably be bouncing around the cabin rather violently. When I sat beside the pilot I could usually get the seatbelt around my waist but sometimes, depending on where I was sitting and where the seatbelt was located, through the leg strap was the best I could do.
ignorance fought. I thought they pulled the seats for jumping. Unless you have a shoulder harness the outcome with seatbelts is usually head trauma.
My biggest fear is losing an engine on takeoff or on short final. I spend a lot of time practicing how to land with the engine at idle. If I’m by myself and nobody is in the pattern I will usually land this way. If I’m near the fuel minimums upon arrival I will land this way.
The seats were removed; the seatbelts were bolted to the floor.
Confidence level not high with that arrangement.
A C-206 that is ** legal** on weight that is only 500’AGL a mile past the end of a 6000’ runway = something very wrong.
To make a full & wide 360º turn means some kind of power is available. Thew fact that he was making a very shallow turn means to me that he knew he was either very heavy ( too heavy if checked ) or was so close to stall speed that even shallow banking was dangerous.
Were any flaps deployed?
Sounds like a sick, high time engine that was being pushed real hard for way too long.
As stated above, it worked so it was not wrong.
Exactly how many people with chutes were on board and what was the aprox fuel load? 
While I’m not second-guessing your decision, aren’t there parachutes or parachute gear that allow safe jumps at that altitude? I thought that WWII paratroops often jumped at those sorts of heights. I understand that your gear wouldn’t permit this, but could it be done if you were prepared for precisely this situation?
They generally used “static lines”, which pull the parachute open as the jumper exits the plane for near-optimal chute deployment. Probably not the case here.
It’s in the ballpark of 250’, but AFAIK even BASE jumpers get a bit nervous below 500’.
I agree. It meets FAA regulations, but as I said, I don’t know how much good they would do. Not all jump planes are set up that way but most Cessnas are (Cessnas are by far the most common jump plane, specifically C-182s). Twin Otters are another popular jump plane and they very often have two benches running down the sides of the plane with seat belts that go around the waist of each jumper.
I don’t know exactly where we were when the engine trouble developed; I was on the floor of the plane and couldn’t see the ground. Xema said a mile from the takeoff point, and Johnny L.A. said a 206 can be airborne in just under 2000 feet so we were probably already at 300 ft or more AGL when we passed the end of the runway.
I don’t know if any flaps were deployed or what the fuel load was, sorry! There were five skydivers with full gear on board, plus the pilot. I don’t remember if he was wearing an emergency chute.
As Dr. Strangelove stated, paratroopers usually use a static line, which can deploy a parachute very quickly. If we were using static lines we probably could have all jumped and survived, but none of us were. And frankly, I would be scared shitless to make a static line jump from 500 feet.
BASE jumpers use slightly different gear than skydivers; theirs is designed to open quickly, ours is designed to open slowly. We don’t want a fast opening when we’re in freefall at 120 mph, which can injure and even kill a person. I like it when my parachute takes 500 feet to open; nice soft gentle deployments are a good thing (I usually deploy between 2500 & 3000 feet).
Well, as has been stated, the conventional wisdom is to land straight ahead. This pilot pulled of an “impossible turn”. What I would guess is that this pilot has been flying this 206 for quite a few hours. He knows his plane and what it will and will not do.
As an A&P mechanic and a PP, I know that all 206s are not made the same. Some just fly better then others. Not all engines of the same make and model produce the same amount of HP.
We also know nothing about the possible modifications that this particular aircraft has had done to it. If it has a STOL kit, +/or a larger engine, +/or a different propeller installed, then this 206 will have a much better chance of making this “impossible turn”. With a STOL kit the stall speed is greatly reduced as the wing produces lift at a much lower airspeed.
If it has a STOL kit and vortex generators installed, it is almost impossible to stall. We have one in my neck of the woods that has ALL of the above. I could not make it stall when I flight tested the larger engine that I had rebuilt for it. On a power off stall this plane would just mush through the air and very slowly lose altitude. IIRC, Its stall speed, VSO, is 8 knots. If it had a full load (IE maximum allowed loading) at 500 ft AGL from the local airport with a field elevation of 5500 ft msl, it could land back on the runway it left from, but in the opposite direction. I would not try to make a large 360 degree turn at our elevation. The wings do not produce as much lift here as they do in Indiana, due to the thinner air at this height. At 827 ft msl in Goshen, IN. I would expect this highly modified 206 to be able to complete this “impossible turn” and land on the same runway heading east with relative ease.
There are way too many variables for me to say what I would do. Assuming that the engine is not developing power, and if it were our club 172 with its 40 degrees of flaps and at 6000 ft with the field at 5500 ft, I land straight ahead on the paved road that runs parallel to the runway. The power poles are offset from the road by 20 ft and the traffic is light. I can just tow the 172 back to the airport and fix the problem.
Thanks for that informative reply, 48Willys (and again, thanks to everyone who has replied). Could you address the issue of how deleterious a cracked cylinder head would be? I’m pretty sure we still had some power available, just not enough to maintain altitude.
To be clear, the ground roll is 910 feet. By the book, it takes 1,860 feet for the ground roll plus enough climb to clear a 50-foot obstacle such as trees or power lines.
Like many others here, I’m not entirely enthused at armchair-quarterbacking another pilot in that situation, but since you asked nicely…
500 feet is pattern altitude, and my inclination would be to try to keep the upcoming landing as normal as possible. That grass runway looks awful nice to me, and given a choice I’d prefer a grass runway over a field. Not that I would always refuse a field - I have performed a successful emergency landing of a Cessna in a farm field. It’s about as much fun as getting bucked off a horse, which I have also experienced first hand. Which is a major reason I’d prefer a runway of any sort. The thing is, even without any power a single-engine Cessna should be able safely make a perpendicular runway from 500 feet.
He must of had some power still coming from the engine, otherwise he could not have made that full 360 back to the take off point. Maybe he turned for the grass runway and realized he was able to go all the way to the paved one. Me, I probably would have opted for the grass, but then, I am very, very comfortable with grass runways, I’ve used them a lot. Not everyone is that chummy with them.
The “land straight ahead” on take off power failures is, in my opinion, intended for failures below pattern height. Once you’re up to pattern height you start to have a few more options, especially if you aren’t completely without power.
A cracked cylinder head means you’ve lost a lot of engine power and efficiency, but I could definitely see it supplying some power, which will greater reduce the rate of descent even if it’s not sufficient to climb or even maintain level flight.
I’ll make another note - my emergency landing was in about 100 miles due west of Goshen, in terrain that is, if anything, even flatter. I was in a smaller, slower Cessna at the time and I landed in a farm field lined up, just as they tell you, with the plow ruts. Nobody got hurt and nothing got broke, but I wouldn’t describe it as fun.
Thanks for that clarification, Johnny. I did click on your link; I wanted to use the larger figure to show that we were almost certainly in the air with at least 4000 ft. of runway left.
And thanks for checking in, Broomstick. I was hoping you’d post in this thread. You and/or Johnny post in most of the aviation threads and I always enjoy the insights you two bring.
I appreciate everyone’s contributions and I certainly didn’t intend to criticize or second-guess our pilot; I was very happy with the end result. I was just curious how other pilots might have reacted, and I understand that it’s almost impossible to say until you find yourself in that situation, in that particular airplane. Our pilot was experienced at flying jumpers and was very familiar with the characteristics of that plane.
When did they start teaching that?
All my life I have been taught & used 800 AGL for VFR patterns unless directed by other authority like Approach control or a Control tower. ( permanent NOTAM )Some times it is changed because of obstacles or terrain but this is not all that common.
My dad was living in Lancaster, and the plane he’d just bought was in San Diego. The FBO flew the plane up to him. About halfway there, the propeller lost about six inches off of one of its blades. Much violent shaking ensued. The pilot shut it down immediately, and a successful emergency landing was made at MCAS El Toro. The airframe and engine mounts were inspected, the engine was torn down and magnafluxed, and a brand new cruise-pitch propeller was put on. Dad was satisfied, and this is the airplane I eventually got my license in.
ETA: GusNSpot, 800 feet is what I assume as well. It’s been over a decade since I’ve flown there, but ISTR that VNY had a pattern altitude of 800 feet for helicopters and 1,000 feet for fixed-wing. I could be mistaken about the numbers, but I know the helicopter pattern was lower than the fixed-wing pattern.
.
When I started flying ultralights. 
You’re right, normal pattern altitude is higher but out here in the flat 500 isn’t unknown and can be safe provided you mind the trees. 500 is when you usually make that turn upwind or where you are where you turn final. It is probably better expressed as “when it’s OK to start making turns”.
My practice was that 1,000 was normal pattern altitude unless otherwise indicated.
My more detailed thought process for making the turn to the grass strip was that at 500 feet somewhere not far after the paved runway, that’s a pretty nice altitude and location to basically be entering an extended base for that runway 22, especially with no wind.
A very good rule of thumb, especially for fields you are not intimately familiar with.