Wow! Engine failure after takeoff in Bonanza.

[AdamFrisch]

Everyone lived, thankfully. Great footage from 3 different angles. The most well documented EFATO ever, probably.

As you can see, the earth comes up to meet you a lot faster than you think when you're carrying a lot of drag in the T/O config. I initially thought he'd get to the green field a lot further in, but as you can see he barely makes it. Glad everyone is fine.

Airplane Crash at Fairbanks Shown from 3 Onboard Cameras N334DH - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=234_naonoH8&feature=youtu.be)

[atakacs]

Interesting and eye opening video. Surprised that the cause of the engine failure could not be determined ?!

[Mark 1]

I was 1 minute behind Dale in the Bonanza on that group take off. It was actually nearer 200' than 400' so not enough time to put the gear down.
Here's (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20120727X40845&ntsbno=ANC12FA079&akey=1) the official NTSB narrative.

He ended up with a bruise in the chest the exact shape of a Bonanza yoke!

We were guessing that it might have been something like a sheared camshaft to switch off the power that quickly, so still mystified.

This was the view I had from my cockpit window:
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t50/alberym/Alaska%202012/PhotoJul26102055.jpg[/URL]
He's now bought a twin!

[dirkdj]

A friend of mine had almost the same experience, engine failure after take-off at about 100ft above the runway; The engine was running fine on post-crash examination. Prop and airframe severely bent, total loss, occupants to hospital.

Sequence of events:
On the previous flight Left tank had been run dry in the air. No big deal, switch tanks and continue. Both tanks filled before next take-off. Runup and taxi done on Right tank. On the runway, aligned for take-off, SWITCHED TO THE LEFT TANK, followed printed checklist that said 'fullest tank'.

NOTE: Left tank or fuel selector has not been drained or used in any way since the refuelling.

Pocket of air between fuel tank and fuel selector valve now travels towards the engine. There is just enough fuel in the line to bring the aircraft to about 100ft and then SILENCE. Engines don't run on air.

Very preventable. Start and taxi on one tank, switch to the other tank for runup and stay on that proven tank until at safe altitude.
Don't change tanks after run-up.
On this particular aircraft, I had previously experienced that it could take from 10-20 seconds before the engine would run again after switching from an empty tank (at altitude).

[Local Variation]

Why would you knowingly run a tank dry? and given your explanation of events and outcome, running a tank dry is a tad more than 'no big deal'.

Seems poor airmanship to me to run a tank down to empty before switching.

Having also suffered an EFATO at 500 feet directly over the M1 motorway, time is indeed very short.

[Pace]

Amazing footage! He only just made it over the water onto hard ground and what really surprised was the really short distance the aircraft stopped in.
Very pleased no one was seriously injured as it could have turned out far worse.
We should practice EFAT more in different configs and mentally selecting possible landing sites should the big shock occur

Pace

[Mark 1]

Why would you knowingly run a tank dry?

You may want to read this (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182044-1.html?type=pf).

[Local Variation]

Thanks for that and I stand by my comments.

Each to their own.

[172driver]

On the runway, aligned for take-off, SWITCHED TO THE LEFT TANK, followed printed checklist that said 'fullest tank'.

I have always considered this advice / technique idiotic and downright dangerous. After all, you KNOW the plumbing of the tank you have done your taxi out and runup on is working ok and the fuel flows. Why then change to what essentially is an untested tank & plumbing at the most critical phase of flight ? :ugh:

If you absolutely feel you have to test both tanks, than taxi out on one and do the runup on the other. Prevents nasty surprises.

Other than that, well done the guy in the Bonanza. :ok: He also had a spot of luck there - just a tiny bit earlier and he would have hit the embankment. Glad he walked away, albeit 'Bonanza branded' ;)

[AdamFrisch]

Or you get a Commander where there is no fuel management or tanks to shift..;):ok::p

[bubbers44]

We were waiting for our passengers to arrive for our Learjet flight at Burbank and watched a Bonanza with 4 people lose an engine about 200 ft. He tried to turn back but stalled and spun in killing all. Very sad but we never said a word about the smoke when we took off to our two pax. We were always taught at low altitude don't look back because it isn't going to work.

[tmmorris]

Indeed. Some people say never turn back; others have tried to establish a suitable altitude to make that decision. For example the pre-takeoff brief in the RAF Tutor ac was (last time I was in one, which is 3-4 years ago) that they would consider a turnback above 800ft AGL if the terrain ahead looked unsuitable. That's a lot more than 200ft!

Tim

[bubbers44]

Sometimes with terrain you have no alternative but to turn back if you have the altitude. I practiced on my flight sim 2000 turning back trying to land downwind at TGU in Honduras at 1500 ft because turkey buzzards were in flocks everywhere and it worked half the time in the sim. Guess a better chance than landing on houses or into terrain. If you stand the 757 on it's wingtip and get it around there you stand the best chance.

Kind of like the chances of Sully making it back from the Hudson to LGA. Might have worked but probably wouldn't. He did the right thing to save everybody.

[mad_jock]

If you stand the 757 on it's wingtip and get it around there you stand the best chance.

I have tears of laughter at that one.

Whats your Vmca when you stick it on its wing tip then.

Stick to MFS please for gods sake.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Bubbers,

How come you only go it to work half the time and why would you need to wang it around a turn because of turkeys which, as you've stated repeatedly, you could avoid easily?

[bubbers44]

OK Lord let me explain it more simply, obviously I wouldn't turn back unless I lost both engines. Turkey buzzards can cause that to happen you know just like Canadian geese that Sully dealt with. At 1500 feet could you make a standard 30 degree bank and make it back? No. You could do a steeper bank to maybe 45 to 50 degrees and maybe make it back. If you go straight ahead you crash into the side of a mountain because there is no where else to go. Now do you understand? I can diagram the terrain around TGU if you need it or you can just look it up. That small river isn't going to hack it because it isn't straight and wide like the Hudson.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

But you keep saying that you can avoid turkeys.

[bubbers44]

Lord, we avoided 98 % of them but my FO took off one day and approaching 500 ft we turned away from one opposite our clearance, the buzzard turned with us so we reversed our bank as the bird did. They always dive so we pulled up and he climbed and hit right over our cockpit window. You can avoid 98% of them but then you get one like this. We flew at a lower altitude back to Miami in case that big bird split a seam. Standing it on a wingtip was a figure of speach, of course the plane is not designed for that but if you let the nose drop during a steep turn you can get turned around and try for the only survivable touchdown spot or you can just fly straight ahead into the terrain, your choice.

[bubbers44]

Make that 99.9% of them because in 600 flights there we hit one with no damage we found out. Just a big blood spot. At take off flaps at low altitude the 757 isn't that maneuverable. I called the bird out and he made all the maneuvers as I would have but the buzzard was on a death mission I guess. My chief pilot took two aircraft out of commision hitting birds and he didn't fly there that much.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

To avoid mucking up a PRIVATE FLYING thread I'm going to leave you to Mad Jock.

[Big Pistons Forever]

First off a great job of flying. The key to surviving an EFATO is to contact the ground under control, wings level, and in a level or slightly nose up attitude; something this pilot did well.

I am however curious as to whether the pilot was wearing a shoulder harness. Personally I will no longer fly light aircraft that do not have shoulder harnesses fitted. There is clear and compelling evidence that many people have suffered grievous face and head injuries as a result of jacknifing over the lap belt and smashing into the control wheel and/or instrument panel. Had their upper body been restrained they would have likely suffered no, or only minor injuries.

At the risk of being mean minded, the accident statistics show that around 80 % of all engine failures were caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. Since no cause was found for the failure and a sudden and complete loss of power is usually a result of no fuel or contaminated fuel being fed to the engine, I wonder what really happened here.

The bottom line is simple, The best way to deal with an EFATO is to not have the engine to fail in the first place. Therefore IMO, some of the most valuable EFATO accident lessons to learn are not about the post engine failure flying technique used to successfully land, but about understanding the traps that the pilot fell into that caused him/her to contribute to the engine failing in the first place.

[bubbers44]

Works for me. I don't feel there is any reason to repeat anything so I won't.

[mad_jock]

Your Vmca nearly 25% more with the inside engine dead over 10 degrees bank and only gets worse with more bank.

http://www.avioconsult.com/downloads/Effect%20of%20Bank%20Angle%20and%20Weight%20on%20Vmca.pdf

You are playing with things you don't understand.

And this is Private flying stuff in twins Vmca does kill and it does it very quickly. You need to know what your limits are or you will suddenly run out of rudder and the only thing you can do is reduce power on the good engine. And as you have already lost 70-80% of your performance anyway that's power you can't afford to loose close to the ground.

obviously I wouldn't turn back unless I lost both engines

Have you read the report on how fast the 777 at Heathrow dropped once it lost both engines. In my crappy turboprop we would need 5000 feet to do a 180 as a glider. 757 with unpowered controls or just on the RAT not a chance in hell.

[M-ONGO]

Well done to the pilot. I have to wonder, however, whether he ommited to do any form of power checks on this flight. That's what the NTSB are insinuating.

The airplane was outfitted with four video cameras, mounted at various locations on the exterior of the airplane. The audio portion of the video footage captured the airplane start, taxi, takeoff, and the loss of engine power. Approximately 3 minutes 36 seconds after engine start the airplane began its taxi to the hold short lines of runway 20L at Fairbanks. The aircraft held short of runway 20L for approximately 5 minutes, 30 seconds. During this hold short period the audio did not record any sounds consistent with the accident airplane operating at higher RPM’s. Approximately 10 minutes, 24 seconds after engine start the airplane began its takeoff roll, and about 41 seconds later the airplane lost all engine power. A complete brief of the video footage is available in the public docket.

Anyway, a fairly successful outcome - well done.

[tmmorris]

What was the weather? 5 minutes 30 seconds of low/medium power idling would build up some nice carb ice... (forgive my ignorance, perhaps the Bonanza is injected?)

Tim

[Shorrick Mk2]

What was the weather? 5 minutes 30 seconds of low/medium power idling would build up some nice carb ice... (forgive my ignorance, perhaps the Bonanza is injected?)


From the NTSB report


At the time of the accident, it was equipped with a Continental IO-550 engine

[maxred]

Dale;

First, a belated congradulations on your successful 'off field' landing. I've had 2 such encounters (in experimental aircraft) and there's no way to adequately describe the feelings/thoughts running through your head when this occurs.

As for the cause of your power loss, I have for some time been very interested in the NTSB findings of 'power loss for undetermined reasons' in the large Continentals. If you scour the NTSB reports you may be surprised how many times the feds cannnot figure out why the engine stopped.

I think the fuel delivery system on some low wing aircraft with big Continentals can allow the engine driven fuel pump to cavitate when enough air is ingested upstream. I have read that the mech fuel pump is designed to purge itself of smaller quantities of air bubbles, but when they reach a critical mass (i.e., hot conditions, high fuel flow, or a small air leak upstream via the fuel selector valve) the pump can cavitate with instant power loss resulting.

My own experience on this can be found on CSOB. Basically, my F33A was down for about 6 months for a new engine. By the time I got ready to fly again, the small O-ring in the fuel selector valve stem had dried out/shrunk enough to allow air to enter the fuel selector valve. One of my employeed is a very sharp master mechanic & insisted we pull a slight vacuum on the fuel supply line where it attaches to the engine driven fuel pump. After attaching a clear fuel line to the a/c fuel line (so we could SEE any bubbles coming thru), then applying slight vacuum (small hand held vacuum device), I was very surprised to see lots of air being pulled up from the fuel tanks.

It doesn't take much of a 'gap' to allow air to flow into your fuel system. Also, since our fuel tanks are lower than the engine, there will be SOME vacuum occuring there (unlike Cessna's, for instance, which have a slight positive pressure from their high wing tanks). Also, there will be a bit MORE vacuum occuring when in a nose high attitude, as your tanks are even lower than normal, relative to the engine.

I urge all readers to conduct an "UPSTREAM FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY TEST".

You can do it yourself, and you may be shocked at what you find!!!


This should give some food for thought. I have recently renewed everything firewall forward, including renewing, and repositioning, ALL fuel lines. When we looked at the previous positioning and condition of some of these lines, I went a slight shade of grey..My power plant, Continental IO470-N

[AdamFrisch]

Very sadly, Dale Hemman, the pilot who survived the EFATO in the original video posted, just perished in a Beech Baron crash in Alaska a couple of days ago. Very experienced pilot, apparently. Sad news and my thoughts go out to his family. Looks like a VMC into IMC accident.

Victims identified in fatal Cantwell plane crash, pilot posted viral video weeks ago | Alaska Dispatch (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130630/victims-identified-fatal-cantwell-plane-crash-pilot-posted-viral-video-weeks-ago)

[172driver]

Sad. Sometimes one really has to wonder if there is something such as 'fate'...

RIP

[maxred]

Sometimes one really has to wonder if there is something such as 'fate'...

Yes, it was actually his third crash, I believe. Very sad, and as Adam states, a very experienced pilot, but....

Somewhere else on the web, someone, with very great tact and not meaning to cause any disrespect, questioned this apparent run of 'bad luck', Three crashes within a relatively short space of time, seems, well bad karma, or 'fate'.

Perhaps some indivuduals may just push it that once too often, and no good comes from that.

RIP.

[Mark 1]

I heard the news about Dale a couple of days ago, but didn't want to post before the formal naming of victims.
One of the group posted (edit: video no longer available)
on youtube, which gives an idea of the conditions at the time.

RIP Dale. I had a great time flying with you.

[Mark 1]

The initial report (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130628X95008&key=1) is out for the Baron crash.

External cameras were recovered though I doubt we will be seeing the results.