PA-28-161 Engine failure

[nano404]

Engine failed 15 miles NW of PLS/MBPV, Turks and Caicos Islands, 9,000 ft. up, tried until 3,000 ft. Forgot to open door before impact but it opened on impact. They were on a raft, police helicopter was there until a boat picked them up. Three of them, Pilot, her sister and an instructor. I believed she has her PPL so maybe it was for instrument rating? Pilot, instructor un-injured but the sister has some bruises. Accident site 11 miles out.

Reg.: N162ST
Owned by Silver express
Date and time : 21st June 2007, 2152 UTC

KTMB to MBPV IFR flight.

The water is said to be very deep so taking the plane out is not going to happen I guess, and the fact that there was no major injuries, all survived, there isn't much motivation to go through the trouble of getting it.

[bomarc]

thank God they made it ok. lucky they didn't flip over on landing when the gear dug in.

I hope you will post the reason for the failure...certainly they tried carb heat? switching fuel tanks, boost pump, mags...

I had an engine lose power on takeoff in a pa 28 161 and carb heat brought it right back to life...you know how it is.

[kms901]

From 11 miles out @ 9000ft, it should be just be possible to glide to land. Very dependent on wind direction and getting to best glide speed (83mph rings a bell).

Good outcome all things considered.

[nano404]

Well apparently it was 15 miles out at the time, i'll paste the Flight/Accident summary from the accident notification:

Flight/ Accident Summary : N126ST departed Tamiami airport on a private IFR flight en-route to Providenciales International Airport, estimating arrival at 2151 UTC.
At 2150 UTC the pilot, who had been in earlier contact with the Providenciales control tower, reported a total loss of engine power and advised that the airplane will not be able to reach the Providenciales International Airport. At the same time, she further reported the aircraft position at 15miles NW of Providenciales airport and advised that she would be executing a water landing.
The last contact with N126ST occurred at 2154. Shortly thereafter, the pilot landed in very deep waters approximately 11 miles NW of Providenciales airport.


So i guess 4 minutes, 4 miles, apparently for 6000ft they were trying and the instructor said he thought it was going to start once or twice. I think they gave up at around 3000 ft. Media seems to think that the pilot is always a male, local T.V. station and paper says he though it was a female pilot, human imperfections i guess, as the first thing that would come to most persons mind seeing 2 ladies and one man coming from a plane crash is that the man is the pilot.

[welkyboy]

I think there might be a case of running out of fuel here.
PA28-161 has useable 40 Imp Galls, uses 8 IG per hr and the distance from KTMB to MBPV is 500NM, at 100kts air speed, elapsed time is 5hrs and endurance 5 hrs!! This is assuming a direct flight and still air.
When I last flew on that route there was normally a headwind on the leg thru the Bahamas to Turks and Caicos.
Seems they were pushing their luck but got away with it.

[sir.pratt]

9000ft/15nm/@ 90kts, 3nm/1000ft, that works out to 27nm by my calc.

15nm should have been easily achievable, even at 750fpm, which should have given 3nm/1500ft, giving a straight line glide of 18nm.

sounds like they got very lucky, especially as they were picked up @ 11 miles - 4 miles over 9000ft? they're a mile and a half up for goodness sake!

[B2N2]

PA28-161 has useable 40 Imp Galls

It's been a couple of years, but I seem to recall that the Pa28-161 holds 50 gallons of fuel of which 48 usable.
At altitude, properly leaned app. 8 gall/hr, gives you 5 hrs with IFR reserves.

[172driver]

B2N2 you are correct in US gallons, whereas welkyboy talks of Imperial gallons. In any case this could be cutting it a bit fine..... I learned to fly on the -161 and my old POH says 10 gal/hr @ 75% and 8.8 gal/hr @ 65% at best power cruise settings. You can bring this down, of course, but you'd have to make a very conscious effort to wring the last drop of Avgas out of it.... Fuel starvation does indeed sound plausible here.:(
PS: all my figures above are US gallons

[nano404]

It seems they could've made it, but I guess too busy trying to start, I'm sure gliding isn't the first thing on your mind when you loose your engine.

[pumper_bob]

Sir Pratt is spot on there:ok: PFL's were allways, trim for best glide, check wind direction(although over water obviously head for land takes precedence) do a left right check to see if it can be re-started. Then open the door and jam it with something. Lastly get on the radio.

[BeechNut]

We had a case up here in Canada about a week ago, similar story. A bunch of folks were headed from Montreal to Alaska. They ran into some weather and headwinds on the leg taking them to Thunder Bay, and a Cherokee 140 lost its engine and had to ditch in Lake Superior. The pilot/owner managed to get out, but his wife drowned. I believe in their case the bird ended up upside down in the drink.

[IO540]

Not sure I would always immediately trim for best glide.

At say FL150 I have something like 20 mins of glide at Vbg, but anywhere more than 20-odd nm from land I will ditch anyway (assuming nil wind) so I would immediately

pull alternate air (fuel injected engine, note)
fuel pump on
change tanks

and then trim for Vbg (95kt).

One can do the above 3 within a few seconds; the speed will barely have time to decay, so trimming for Vbg will be pointless.

The only time I would go for a landing without trying anything else first is in case of an obvious catastrophic mechanical failure: a big bang and the prop flies off, or the prop suddenly stops, or I see a conrod sticking up through the cowling, or there is massive vibration (e.g. a blade gone partially or wholly missing) and I have to shut off fast.

[BackPacker]

I tend to agree with IO540. Yes, you must trim for best glide as soon as possible, but trimming for best glide will take something like 10 seconds at least. But when the engine stops, your exhaust temperature will drop to ambient in, what, three seconds or less? And once the exhaust temperature has dropped, carb heat (for instance) won't help anymore.

So in case of engine trouble leading to partial or full loss of engine power, here's the drill that I hope I'm going to remember (PA-28 with carbs):

Immediate action items:
- Full power & mixture full rich
- Carb heat on
- Two turns upwards on the trim wheel (assuming cruise trim - this gives me roughly Vbg, fine tune deferred to later)

If very low, don't bother restarting the engine. Trim for best glide, check wind and look for a field. Mayday to ATC, passenger briefing, open door, brace. If time allows, secure the plane before impact (fuel off, electric master off).

If time allows:

Left to right actions:
- Change tanks / aux fuel pump on
- Check ignition on both
- Check primer in & locked
- Check T&Ps, fuel quantity

If engine stopped, try to restart.

Fine trim for best glide, pick a field
Mayday to ATC
Passenger briefing
Jettison loose objects
Think about what I've forgotten...

[nano404]

a rather careless statement - with a comment like that i wonder if you're even a pilot.Never claimed to be :}.

How much is weight taken into consideration?

Correct registration is N162ST, made an error in typing.

[sir.pratt]

with empty tanks + 4 adults, a cherokee is well under mauw.

[nano404]

Well I guess after roughly 580-600 miles (anyone can clarify?) your tank would be nearly empty (clarify?) and it was only 3 persons but the more weight would decrease the glide distance by at least a little? in comparison to just the pilot? Not excusing them for not gliding, just wondering.

[172driver]

What I find a bit amazing here is that

a) with an instructor on board is appears they were trying to attempt a flight that is 506 NM in a direct line and would simply not be doable in a standard -161, even in perfect conditions (at least not with legal reserves)

b) to make matters worse, the last stretch of said flight was over open water, depriving them of any alternative

c) with pilot and instructor on board, they didn't glide better. In a two-pilot situation normally one would handle the trim/glide while the other (in a PA28 the left seat, as that's where the fuel-tank selector is) would attempt to re-start.

Not throwing stones here, I have no idea if there are any -161s out there equipped with long-range tanks and yes, the 'There but for the Grace of God....' always applies, but still makes me wonder if any fuel planning was done.

On a slightly different note: Quite often after reading accident reports it seems to me that two pilots on board often make a situation worse. I am speaking in a spamcan GA environment here, not professional flying. Could it be that there is a certain mistaken reliance on the other or a hesitation to query a flawed decision ? Just wondering.

[mm_flynn]

I suspect some of the facts around where they were at the point of the engine failure are not quite correct. While glide distance varies a bit with weight, it is impossible to be so gash as to loose 9000 ft in 4 miles in anything like 'normal' flight.

Re - 2 pilots (or pilot and instructor) There is a piece on Avweb about Instructor Induced Stupidity (IIS). It is fairly common for PPLs (particularly with different experience levels) to defer authority to 'the other one' resulting in no one taking the command decisions. This is why it is so important to breif the roles people are playing (i.e. is the guy in the right seat PIC because of his experience, PNF and helping, or interested passenger)

[IO540]

Could it be that there is a certain mistaken reliance on the other or a hesitation to query a flawed decision ? Just wondering.

Couldn't agree more. It's easily done, too.

[justinmg]

sir.pratt "9000ft/15nm/@ 90kts, 3nm/1000ft, that works out to 27nm by my calc.

15nm should have been easily achievable, even at 750fpm, which should have given 3nm/1500ft, giving a straight line glide of 18nm.

sounds like they got very lucky, especially as they were picked up @ 11 miles - 4 miles over 9000ft? they're a mile and a half up for goodness sake! "


I am not sure why you calculated it in that way to get 27nm?!

In most trainers a glide ratio of 12:1 would be good.

I only have the POHs for a c150 and c182 RG to hand, which give best glides of 15 and 16miles respectively.

These figures are for test pilots in perfect conditions. A 10:1 glide ratio is much more realistic.

Clearly the 4 miles progress reported can not be correct, either they went round in circles, exceeded a Vne dive, went very slowly into a head wind, or got the initial position wrong.
The important point here for me is that they executed the ditching weel, and were properly prepared for the result. The fuel situation will become apparent later.

[nano404]

What I find a bit amazing here is that

a) with an instructor on board is appears they were trying to attempt a flight that is 506 NM in a direct line and would simply not be doable in a standard -161, even in perfect conditions (at least not with legal reserves)

Heh, I'm going to make things worse now, not only instructor, but chief Instructor:

Ratings: ATP, Multi, CFI, CFII, MEI.
Hours: 6800+
Education: Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Science Embry Riddle Aeronautical University



I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt though.



Just found this, this is posted on their website about the plane:



Fuel Capacity
Fuel Capacity (Standard Tanks):
Toatal Capacity: 50 gallons.
Total Usable: 48 gallons.


Range Profile
Conditions:
2300 pounds
Recommended lean mixture for cruise
Standard temperature
Zero wind
Proformance @ Sea Level
No Reserve (Best Economy Range)
75% power: 555 NM
65% power: 585 NM
55% power: 605 NM


So my guess is that it was safe.
http://www.silverexpress.com/ (http://www.silverexpress.com)

[172driver]

errrr..... did you notice the NO RESERVE in these figures ?

This was IFR, hence 45 mins legal reserve. Honestly, how anyone could embark on this one is beyond me :ugh:

[gcolyer]

Education: Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Science Embry Riddle Aeronautical University


Say no more!! have you ever been flying in Florida and sharing the sky with these guys??

They cant do tight circuits/patterns thats for sure!! They can't be bothered to make radio calls at non controlled airfields, and they can't be bothered to give way or hold short while you are on finals.

[englishal]

My calcs suggest a glide range of 16nm......at 65 kts which from memory is best glide in a PA28-161 and ~600fpm fpm decent.

(9000/600 = 15min; 0.25*65nm = 16.25)

Of course, knocking off a few nm for a head wind and a few more for initial re-starting and messing around below 2000' could easily put glide at <10nm.

[IO540]

No Reserve (Best Economy Range)

The words in brackets are familiar to me; I think they appear in the Lyco documentation.

They refer to operation at peak EGT. This is authorised, in general, at 75% or lower power settings.

Now, how many people know how to lean to this power setting? How many have the instrumentation to do it accurately? How many can even do it without excessive vibration?

If you fly "UK PPL training style" i.e. full rich, the fuel flow is going to be about 30% higher.

[gcolyer]

If you fly "UK PPL training style" i.e. full rich, the fuel flow is going to be about 30% higher.


Yeah why is this???? I think it is so stupid. When I came back from the states and done a "UK" club checkout I leaned up whilst in the cruise. The instructor just about exploded.

Same with stalls. In the US i was taught power on and power of stalls both with clean and dirty airframe. Every club check I have back in the UK I have always asked "what stall config do you want" when they reply "what" and I take the time to explain, they almost want to jump out of the plane.

Strange

[nano404]

Yeah why is this???? I think it is so stupid. When I came back from the states and done a "UK" club checkout I leaned up whilst in the cruise. The instructor just about exploded.

Must think the plane is going to drop out of the sky?

[smith]

If I ever have an engine failure (which I hope I never do) I have a neumonic that I would carry out straight away. CFC

C-carb heat
F-fuel pump(s)
C-change tanks

I know its not taught but I always have it in mind when doing a PFL.

[cbabcock1000]

Hi! I was the pilot in the crash (female as the posts said, and I appreciate the correction from the newspaper). I wanted to correct the information on gliding- the crash was 11 miles offshore but I actually was around 22 miles from shore at 7,000 feet when the failure occured. The engine was making a tapping noise, which sounded like a mechanical issue, but I guess we will never know. Thanks for your interest, and fly safely!

[cbabcock1000]

Also, you may be interested that we did burn calculations from a cross-country the day before of similar length to and fro. The engine failed before we would have encroached on the 45 minutes reserve at 4 hours out. I am grateful to be alive but it's really frustrating not to know what happened!

[Whirlybird]

Hi cbabcock1000,

Welcome to PPRuNe, and I'm really glad you're here and safe and able to talk to us. :ok:

Do you feel up to telling all these armchair pilots what really happened...as far as you know anyway (I gather you don't know why etc). And I for one won't criticise no matter what, since I know it's really easy to make the right decisions when seated at your PC, and horribly difficult when you're up there and know your life may depend on getting it right...and I haven't had to do that over water.

Edited since I posted at the same time as cbabcock1000's second post

[172driver]

cbabcock1000, first of all congrats to walking (or rather - swimming) away from it :ok: Glad you made it !

I am, however, really curious as to the fuel burn. Would you mind sharing these figures here with us and how you arrived at an obviously very low flow rate ?

Again - good to have you here and welcome to Pprune !

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Reference nano404's posting 17: " ...and it was only 3 persons but the more weight would decrease the glide distance by at least a little? in comparison to just the pilot?"

Given the quoted best glide IAS of 65 kt., is the above supposition correct or incorrect? :)

[mm_flynn]

I believe more weight (within reason) just makes your best glide speed higher so you come down faster, but wind up gliding the same distance (shorter time at higher speed). V speeds generally change by half the weight change percentage so being 10% lighter means going 5% slower (and parasitic drag is a function of the square of the velocity so only decreases by 2.5%), induced drag doesn't change because your angle of attack for best glide remains unchanged hence induced drag doesn't change.

[nano404]

cbabcock1000, Good to see your all well, and your sister is fine? Quote:
the crash was 11 miles offshore but I actually was around 22 miles from shore at 7,000 feet
i can't believe the paper got it wrong!

The paper didn't get it wrong, they never got the notification, only the AAIB, ICAO, FAA and a few others got it. Thats where it was stated. So they didn't know all of that, paper did get the gender wrong, so did the news So cbabcock1000 I guess we'll have to get that changed, How long are/were you on island?

[kpatel]

Hello to all. I am the instuctor on the flight. First off let me just say that the female pilot of this plane did a great job. Not only with the emergency, but also the flight leading up to it and the days after.

It seems that a lot of the information on this forum are assumptions or misinformation. There are two points that bother me most. The debate about the glide, and the fuel issue. I will address them both

The airplane lost power 22 nm offshore (30 nm from the airport) @7000 feet. Anyone who has time in a piper cherokee should know that this is not a realist glide. A water landing was inevitable. We were able to glide within 11 nm of the airport, which I believe is quite respectable.

As for fuel. The Piper burns 8.8 gph at 65% power. At 9000ft (our altitude for this flight), the aiplane is not able tho produce 75% as some have suggested. I have flown this airplanes for many years, and understand that most pilots dont know how to properly set power and lean the mixture. I assure you I am not one of them. With our calculated burn, we should have reached our destination with one hour of fuel to spare. Also no indications in the cockpit, or during restart (switching tanks) indicates fuel starvation.

I hope this clears up some points. For those of us in the airplane, the cause seems obvious, and we are just glad to be here to tell the story.

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Sorry sir.pratt, but with regard to the effect of weight (now known as mass) mm_flynn's is the correct answer.

I have dusted off my thirty-five year old copy of the BLAC Manual of Flying and Ground Training, and turned to the chapter on Descending. Section 2.5 reads: "Effect of Weight on the Glide. Variation in the weight does not affect the gliding angle, provided that the speed is adjusted to fit the A.U.W." It then shows the vector diagram to prove that the increased speed vector, acting down the inclined plane, is balanced by the increased weight vector, acting vertically.

The obverse side of this is the fact that, for any fixed airspeed, a heavier aeroplane will have a lesser gliding angle. This is why high performance sailplanes carry water ballast and a lightly loaded jet transport aircraft will take considerably less distance to descend from altitude compared with when it is heavy, given the same speed profile.

The lucky people in the Cherokee were therefore slightly better placed by being three up, the opposite of what some people might think!

[dublinpilot]

Can the pilots involved tell us anything about the ditching process, or anything they learnt from the process?

What was the sea state at the time, and how did it affect the ditching?

Did the aircraft stay upright? Anything to be learnt from the evacuation proceedures? Difficulties getting into the life raft?

Anything done right, and anything you'd do differently in future?

Just seeing to learn a little, in the hope that I never have to use that knowledge! :}

dp

[cbabcock1000]

Hi dublin! Thanks for your interest- I would say it's great to have an experienced pilot on board, like Kamal. He saved our lives with an amazing landing- he leveled the wings to prevent the plane from flipping, which is really important. He also slowed down the plane to a stall just as we hit to lessen impact. Definitely wear your seatbelts. I don't think anything was wrong with the planning, although maybe having a multiengine over the last water stretch could have been better.

[kpatel]

Nano404. I assume you are either an official, relation to an official, or friend of an official. Otherwise, I am not sure how you know what our statement was. Regardless of which one of the three you are, you have your facts wrong. I suggest you read over our statements again.