Engine Failure After Takeoff - Are YOU ready for it?

[mary meagher]

Three recent threads. Harrison Ford suffers engine failure. His home field, he was ready, landed on the local golf course.

In Spokane Washington, a Malibu had engine failure very shortly after takeoff due to wrong fuel. Witnesses reported wing drop, nose high. Pilot killed.

In the Alps, light plane in difficulty lands on ski slope, injures skier.

Whatever the cause, whoever was to blame for the engine failure, the pilot has very little time to safely put it down.

You don't EXPECT the engine to quit! Never think about it before takeoff, right? In 30 years of flying power, my engine never quit!

But flying gliders, launch failure is ALWAYS POSSIBLE. Practiced a lot before you go solo, and demonstrated every year before your CFI is happy that you can cope. The pretakeoff checks always cover the following: CB SIFT CB E. Controls, Ballast, Straps, Instruments, Flaps, Trim, Canopy, Airbrakes, EVENTUALITIES....which means, if the cable breaks when you are half way up the wire in a VERY NOSE HIGH ATTITUDE, the first thing is to lower the nose below the horizon, achieve correct flying speed, and THEN decide where to put the aircraft. These simple steps can save your butt if you include EVENTUALITIES in your preflight checks.

And even with all that training, a genuine launch failure will be a surprise.
In power, an engine failure after takeoff, so unexpected, so surprising, no wonder how many pilots are caught out.

The simple reaction of lowering the nose, achieving best speed, and following the plan you made before takeoff, can make a landing survivable even in trees, on a building, in a parking lot, on a road, in a lake, or, like Harrison Ford, on a golf course.

Did you ever experience engine failure? do tell us about it!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Never think about it before takeoff, right?
"Take-off brief" is in the club checklist. An instructor will expect you to say where you're going in case of EFATO at various points.

[ShyTorque]

I fly Class 1 profiles for departure and landing. Not mandatory but safer.

[India Four Two]

One complete failure due to fuel exhaustion. I was being checked out by the owner of a Motorfalke SF25B, prior to my club leasing it from him.

He looked at the fuel contents and said (famous last words), "There's enough here for one more circuit".

We were flying from Innisfail, AB, which was a BCATP airfield with a triangle of runways. I took off on Runway 25 and the engine coughed and died during the climbout - due to the pipe in the tank becoming uncovered. We were just past the upwind end of the runway. I don't remember the altitude. The owner took over and started a descending 180°. We didn't make it all the way round and ended up just getting the wings level, prior to an abrupt landing on Runway 13, instead of Runway 07.

We could have easily landed straight ahead into a stubble field, but the owner was influenced by not wanting to have to derig and carry the Motorfalke back to the airfield. I learned a very powerful lesson from that experience. Don't turn back unless you are really high.

I also had more thoughts on forced landings after my flight from Santa Monica last week, the day after Harrison Ford's accident. The LA basin airports are all surrounded by mostly unlandable terrain, so I've decided in general, subject to ATC requirements, to take off with max rate of climb and to keep within gliding range when landing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Mary:

I read your PM and will contact you in the near future when I have time to write a proper answer.

And yes I have had several engine failures over the years.....the secret to surviving is stay in control of the aircraft and do whatever is necessary to either keep it in the air or land it safely.

I'm still here. :ok:

[Jan Olieslagers]

My examiner switched off the engine when we were a couple of feet off the ground... (and after he had told me to use every foot of runway available, so I was aware he had some trick up his sleeve). There's a lesson that sticks in memory!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The simple reaction of lowering the nose, achieving best speed, and following the plan you made before takeoff, can make a landing survivable even in trees, on a building, in a parking lot, on a road, in a lake, or, like Harrison Ford, on a golf course.




Sadly many people have died by freezing in shock when the engine failed. That paralysis only has to last a few seconds and the after takeoff nose up attitude will cause the aircraft to lose enough speed to stall, which will then usually result in a spin and everybody dies when the aircraft hits the ground.

As part of the takeoff brief I get my students to start by physically pushing the wheel/stick forward as they verbalize "I will pitch down and then establish the attitude to hold a speed of XX(best glide)". The idea is to build automatic muscle memory that will take hold even under the shock of the sudden silence.

One of the things that flight training does quite badly IMO is inculcating into students that they need a nice level smooth field chosen after reciting some elaborate and time consuming mnemonic to "succeed" at a forced landing.

In reality there is very little terrain that is truly uncrashable in a light aircraft. I Know a gentleman that drove his Cessna 172 into the side of a house after he ran out of gas:rolleyes:. Everybody onboard walked away from the wreckage.

The accident statistics show that the greatest factor in accident survivability is whether or not the aircraft was under control when it crashed. The killer accidents are the steep nose down and highly banked uncontrolled smash into the ground ones. If you are wings level and slightly nose high at glide speed or lower you will probably survive the hit even in extremely unforgiving terrain.

If you presume a steady 9 Gee deaccelration than you only need 25 feet of ground run to go from 60 kts to stopped. 9 Gee means your seat will not break, your seat belt will hold you, and the cabin will not deform to an appreciable extent. This is an open the door and get out and walk away scenario. Almost any small distance of ground run will make a crash survivable even a few feet as was the case of the uninvited house guest.

Another factor that greatly influences survivability is wearing a full harness. 5 point is best but even a well fitted shoulder harness will greatly reduce your chance of injury. Personally I will not fly an airplane that does not have upper body restraints for the front seat occupants.

[India Four Two]

In reality there is very little terrain that is truly uncrashable in a light aircraft.

I remember that my attitude to forced landings changed, when being checked out prior to renting an aircraft, the instructor said:

"Remember that when the engine fails, the aircraft belongs to the insurance company. Your job is to walk away from the crash."

I feel that many injuries and fatalities in forced landings are due to pilots worrying about damaging the aircraft and therefore stretching the glide to get to a field.

[9 lives]

Six complete engine failures which put me on the ground, two of which were EFATO at less than 200 AGL, two more back on the departure runway remaining. Two more significant power loss after TO (stuck exhaust valves), and three more precautionary use of idle power only during a glide approach due to new break in engine problems - usually oil pressure or leak. Luckily, I have always landed in a place from which a later takeoff was possible. Yes, I plan EFATO, so far so good.

So, glide speed for EFATO:

Be VERY cautious of this "best" glide speed number, it's an EFATO trap! THE scariest thing I have ever had to do was demonstrate a power off land back in a modified Caravan, from 50 feet (EFATO). I was required to fly progressively slower speeds, even though any of the speed slower than the book speed of 87KIAS would probably have resulted in a damaged plane, without some rapid intervention.

The Cessna Flight Manuals I quickly reviewed (1979 C206, in particular) state a "Maximum" glide speed. It certainly won't be the best for an EFATO! If you attempt a flare and land from an EFATO at 50 feet, at the "maximum" glide speed in the flight manual of 65 knots, you're going to bend the plane. So, Cessna has wisely also provided a speed for EFATO; 80 knots. That's more like it.

The "maximum" glide speed is what you'll want to fly at to make it to the coast, or over the mountains. Once you want to actually approach to land, you'd better fly faster than the "maximum" glide speed!

So, a vital part of an EFATO plan is to be already flying faster than "maximum" glide speed - you'll probably find that Vy + a few knots will work out fairly well for that.

Consider how much altitude you're going to have to give up, if you're slow, and have to trade altitude for airspeed to get to the Vy + for a safe approach glide - it's more than you think! There are some height/airspeed combinations, from which a safe glide could not be entered at all following takeoff - avoid those!

[horizon flyer]

Yep had a failure in a 177RG at 750ft, all the oil fell out of the engine, dose not run long without oil. Turned left and put in a field 1.5 miles and 60 seconds later. Kept speed up at 90mph, 60 degree banked turn stall speed, until the flare. Kept thinking don't stall it on approach, better to run into the far hedge. Rolled 165yards walked away. The quick drain sump plug had fallen out, not torqued in correctly, after oil change 10 hours earlier.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Be VERY cautious of this "best" glide speed number, it's an EFATO trap!

[ChickenHouse]

Last item of my Before T/O check reads Emergency Briefing right after Departure Briefing. Even though not really expecting engine failure, I recall what to do in case of at this specific airport before calling tower with ready to departure or to everybody to announce lineup. And yes, almost every time I use the checklist and always with callout when carrying Pax in light plane. One of the beauties of strict checklist flying. Btw: part of emergency is - whenever possible go straight, never do 180 unless absolutely unavoidable or min 600-1000ft (h depending on a/c) - had several friends crashing on the attempt. I agree forcing "best glide" is bad, reason being don't panic, don't fly numbers, fly the f***'in machine according to situation, keep cool. And last, yes, I do train engine out frequently on checkouts.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Be VERY cautious of this "best" glide speed number, it's an EFATO trap!

I dislike one size fits all pronouncements. I would suggest that going to the attitude that will result in a Best Glide speed can be dangerous if the aircraft is

1) Close to the ground, and

2) already at a speed below Best Glide.

In this situation the aircraft will not have time to stabilize at the higher best glide speed before it hits the ground. The low energy resulting from the low speed will not allow a proper flare and a damagingly hard touchdown is likely. In this scenario a considerable more nose down attitude than what is normally flown in the glide may be initially required to allow the aircraft to accelerate to best glide speed when the nose can then be raised to the normal glide attitude. However while the metal will be bent there is a low probability of injuries. If the nose is not lowered at all which unfortunately has happened too many times than people will likely die.

The saddest accident report I ever read was an Tomahawk EFATO. Engine failure at 300 feet resulted in a stall/spin/die accident sequence. There was no evidence that the pilot ever lowered the nose but he did use the time before the fatal stall to make a radio call :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Step Turn is a hugely experienced test pilot and I very much respect his opinions, but I have never flown a SEP where a normal flare and landing could not be performed off an approach flown at Best Glide speed. I Have never flown a Caravan but I am guessing nobody else reading this has either.



So, glide speed for EFATO:


The Cessna Flight Manuals I quickly reviewed (1979 C206, in particular) state a "Maximum" glide speed. It certainly won't be the best for an EFATO! If you attempt a flare and land from an EFATO at 50 feet, at the "maximum" glide speed in the flight manual of 65 knots, you're going to bend the plane. So, Cessna has wisely also provided a speed for EFATO; 80 knots. That's more like it.


I think there is some semantic mis-understanding over what I wrote in an earlier post. If the 206 POH says for the EFATO use 80 knots then 80 kts is the "Best Glide" speed, or the one that will provide the optimal performance and the one that should be attained and maintained after an EFATO. Glide speeds specified for other phases of flight are obviously not applicable to this scenario

I think pretty much all of the lighter SEP's like the C 172 and Pa 28 have POH direction that specifies only one speed as "Best" glide and that is used for all engine failures scenarios which simplifies life for the pilot. However as always the POH is the best source of infromation for any particular aircraft.

[piperboy84]

I am reading this correctly, the best glide for an EFATO is higher the the POH L/d Max because you need to trade the extra speed (energy) for a proper flare?

[ChickenHouse]

I think it is much easier. If you are in climb your momentum vector shows up and best glide assume vectors leveled. When immediately going to best glide velocity the momentum part up in vector addition will be eaten up by gravity and you are too slow horizontally - boom. So, first level and adjust attitude before going for best glide, but who takes this time in such a situation? Everybody should be able to flare and land from powerless best glide approach, or should train this specifically.

[thing]

You don't EXPECT the engine to quit! Never think about it before takeoff, right?It's part of my take off brief to either myself if I'm flying solo or to everyone if I have pax. Say it out loud as well even if you're on your own. I fully expect the donk to quit everytime I go flying , I won't take off from anywhere that doesn't have an out, which means obviously that I won't land there either.Any new airfield gets a thorough checkout on Gogglerth for possible donk failure landing spots. Cautious, moi..:)? Fully intend being alive for a lot longer.

Last EFATO drill I did with an instructor after I had pushed forward he said 'I'll just get my head out of the roof then.'

Edit: would agree with an earlier post about best glide speed being a minimum, if of course you have the time to get that much speed on. You can always get rid of speed, it's hard to put it back on when you're in the weeds. This is EFATO of course, fanstop in the cruise gives a bit more time.

Something from my glider days that I put here for discussion having never tried it in a power aircraft. If you are into wind in a glider on a field landing and look like you might be landing short the best solution is to put the nose down to increase speed. Do any of the instructor/ten thousand hour guys here think that this is applicable to power flying? It's something I would consider if I was ever in that situation although I have no figures to back that up. Purely working on the assumption that a donk failure aircraft is just a glider.

[ChickenHouse]

I suspect glider and power are not comparable. In a glider you can trade altitude for speed and horizontal reach, but with power the drag is so high that the energy degradation by velocity squared friction will eat up any benefit. But an interesting suggestion, should try that at a training session.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

On mine the engine kept running but at much reduced power. Here's what I posted at the time:

Well, we didn't get to Sherlowe today. In fact, we didn't get anywhere. But it was quite exciting.

We met at Barton and pulled Sierra Lima (Chipmunk) from the hanger. The weather wasn't brilliant, but it was quite flyable. We pre-flit, strapped in, and fired up. Once the oil temp was up, we taxyed to the hold for 09 (the only one of Barton's runways which points directly at a built up area). Checks complete, we lined up and I applied full power. Tail-up, SL accelerated smoothly over the wet grass and I let her unstick at 45 knots, holding her down just above the surface in ground effect until we had 60 knots, then eased the stick back and climbed out at 70 with a good rate of climb.

As we crossed the upwind fence, SL gave a mighty cough, which I felt through the controls. Could be a bit of water in the fuel - I made a mental note to stay in the circuit until I was happy with the engine, and continued ahead (no other options at that stage, anyway). A couple of seconds later, now about 300 feet over the built up area, the steady blattering roar of the Gypsy Major engine deteriorated into a series of loud pops, bangs, and surges, accompanied by much vibration. I leveled off immediately, holding full power (such as it now was...), lowered the nose to let the speed build a tad, then turned gently left transmitting "Sierra Lima immediate return". Above the cacophony from up front I couldn't hear the reply on the radio, but knew there was at least one other aircraft in the circuit in front of us. If we could turn beyond 90 degrees before the engine failed completely I thought we could probably continue a gliding, descending teardrop turn from there and getback in on runway 20 - or at least somewhere on the airfield or into a field north of Barton. The panel was vibrating so much I couldn't read the instruments (not that I needed them) and the engine was making the most awful row and threatening to jump off the aeroplane.

In the ever so gentle descending turn I noted the local cemetery rotating around the left wingtip and looking ominously close. Then three brilliant white swans in perfect formation swept gracefully under us; I could swear their beady eyes were swivelled upwards towards the noisy, banging, shaking, farting red beast descending towards them. Rather than the engine failing completely as I had feared it might, the misfiring actually became slightly less severe and I realised we could hold height. So I stopped the turn after 180 degrees which put us on a very close-in very low level downwind leg for the active runway, 09. I transmitted "Sierra Lima, rough running engine, immediate return" in case the tower and the circuit traffic hadn't got the message the first time. Again, I couldn't hear the reply over the row from the engine. I pulled on flap, turned base very close in with the 09 numbers on the left wingtip while transmitting "Sierra Lima close-in left base" for the information of any other traffic that this is now MY RUNWAY AND I AM GOING TO LAND ON IT. As I closed the throttle I heard someone else transmit that they were "going around dead side", which was good 'cause it meant that they had got the message. I let go a very old breath, pulled full flap, trimmed for 60 knots, and continued a steep gliding left turn right down onto the runway.

We taxyed all the way to the end then, followed by the fire tender with its blue flashing light, straight to the engineer's hangar. They did some ground runs - lots of misfiring (but nothing like as bad as it had been in the air) with flames and white puffs of unburnt fuel from the exhaust at high RPM, black smoke at low RPM.

Those swans were just surreal! And as a postscript, the aeroplane was 'fixed' by changing the plugs, but it still wasn't running as it should. Later, we applied a mod so we could use 'modern' plugs, which improved things a lot. But what really fixed it was, several months after the above, a mag failed (on the ground)and after it was changed, all was well.

[Fliegenmong]

You don't EXPECT the engine to quit! Never think about it before takeoff, right?

Uh..yes I do!!! :ugh:

[nkt2000]

I am a student pilot and regularly practice EFATO with my instructor. However, I fly from a international airport with quite a long runway but, depending on runway in use, often only use less than half of it. Most of the books I have read say that you should always use all the runway available and I guess this could be useful in an EFATO situation where it may be possible to land straight ahead on the same runway. It seems to me to be a wasted opportunity. what to the panel think?

[rnzoli]

I am reading this correctly, the best glide for an EFATO is higher the the POH L/d Max because you need to trade the extra speed (energy) for a proper flare?No, I think the extra speed is needed for manouvering options (the a/c bleeds more energy in turns, some may be sharp ones), before I am comfortable with the ending point of the final glide.
Another reason is that if I have enough height to turn back with a 180, the headwind during the takeoff will become a tailwind during the turn, and I need to reserve extra airspeed for that change.

[piperboy84]

Another reason is that if I have enough height to turn back with a 180, the headwind during the takeoff will become a tailwind during the turn, and I need to reserve extra airspeed for that change.


Sorry i,m not getting that one either, why would you need more airspeed over best glide due to the wind direction? granted they tail wind will get you back to the airstrip quicker due to increased groundspeed but other than that I don't see need to adjust airspeed when you switch direction on account of wind

[Crash one]

Quote:
Never think about it before takeoff, right?
"Take-off brief" is in the club checklist. An instructor will expect you to say where you're going in case of EFATO at various points.

I don't have an instructor to expect me to say where I'm going.
I think we should forget the instructor/club checklist/someone else will help, thing. Deserted strip surrounded by crops, plowed fields, stubble, cattle etc, depending on season.
Is it a good idea to climb with a shallow angle turn? The longer it keeps running the closer I am to the downwind, my strategy anyway.
Yes I think about it a lot thanks.

[rnzoli]

I don't see need to adjust airspeed when you switch direction on account of windI meant only during the turn (not afterwards). Near the ground, the wind can be quite turbuent due to obstacles and the last thing I need is an unexpected minus in airspeed, too close to the ground. For me, controlled flight is first, with reserve speed margins for the suddent task saturation in that situation. Everything else (optimal glide etc.) is 2nd or lower priority. But maybe I am wrong.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Is it a good idea to climb with a shallow angle turn? The longer it keeps running the closer I am to the downwind, my strategy anyway.


As a general rule height is life in the EFATO scenario, so I tell my students to climb straight ahead to 1000 feet at Vy airspeed. I would suggest that any turn be delayed until it would be impossible to land straight ahead and then only turn towards a field ahead of you.

I think it is also important to point out that the EFATO danger zone is maybe 2 minutes out of every flight. The chance that a pilot of a Cessna or Piper ( or any other small certified SEP aeroplane) will have an engine fail in that 2 minutes is not high.

Experience has shown that if you do have an engine problem in the takeoff phase of flight it is just as likely or even more likely that you will experience a partial power loss, not a complete engine failure, something that sadly is hardly ever covered in flight training, but of course gives you more options.

Finally if the engine does stop it is quite probable that it stopped because of something the pilot did not do, like drain the fuel, select the right tank, make sure there was no carb ice etc etc. Paying attention to the details of preflight preparation may be boring and unsexy compared to practicing hero pilot PFL maneuvers but it is much more likely to ensure a drama free flight.

There was a report in the accident section of Pilot magazine last year that got my attention. A Pa 28 suffered a complete loss of engine power in a descent to landing. The pilot successfully completed a difficult forced landing in fairly inhospitable terrain such that while the aircraft sustain heavy damage there were no injuries. The pilot reported that he attributed the success of his force landing to the fact that he regularly practiced the forced approach manoever.
The cause of the engine failure was deemed to be carb ice.:hmm:. It would seem to me that the pilot should have spent a bit less time on practicing forced landing and a bit more time learning about carb icing and developing and practicing an effective inflight SOP to mitigate the chances of devloping carb ice. If he had done that there would be one less crashed Pa 28 in the UK......

Airplanes are not not getting bent and people are not getting hurt because of an epidemic of EFATO's, airplanes are in general getting bent in landing and takeoff accidents that are a result of poor basic flying skills. If you are a lower time PPL and and want to prevent your first accident than I would suggest spend some time perfecting your takeoffs and landings under all conditions.

So my 5 cents (CDN)

Dealing with the possibility of an EFATO, (for those lower time PPL's flying the common certified club trainer/tourer types):

1) Sweat the preflight preparations. Make sure you have drained the tanks and visually verified the quantity. Do a proper run up and make sure you know what you are doing. By that I mean I see too many pilots doing a run up by rote without a real understanding of what the purpose of each check is and what would constitute a non normal indication for each check item.

2) Use a checklist and, in particular have and use a formal set of checks for the pretakeoff checks. This will help stop the stupid errors like having the fuel selected on the wrong tank, mixture not set full rich (or leaned for high DA), the fuel boost pump not on, etc etc .

3) Just prior to takeoff review the immediate actions in the event of an EFATO . The most critical is an immediate and positive pitch down. Practice this by physically moving the control wheel firmly forward to develop the muscle memory.

4) Climb at Vy until 1000 feet AGL to get altitude and thus time and options as quickly as possible

5) If the engine fails below 1000 feet point the aircraft at the nearest open area that is visible through the windscreen. If there is nothing open concentrate on hitting the ground under control with the wings level, a slightly nose up pitch attitude and the airspeed reducing below best glide. Don't turn back to the runway below 1000 feet AGL

At the very real risk of unseemly Monday Morning Quarterbacking, I would humbly suggest that if the unfortunate pilot of the miss-fueled Piper Mirage had followed the above 5 steps the outcome might have been less catastrophic...

[Mach Jump]

I am a student pilot and regularly practice EFATO with my instructor. However, I fly from a international airport with quite a long runway but, depending on runway in use, often only use less than half of it. Most of the books I have read say that you should always use all the runway available and I guess this could be useful in an EFATO situation where it may be possible to land straight ahead on the same runway. It seems to me to be a wasted opportunity. what to the panel think?

nkt2000:

If you have an EFATO in most light aircraft, after using the full length of the runway at an international airport, you will, almost certainly, have either enough runway in front of you to land straight ahead, or enough height to safely turn back for either a glide approach to the same runway, or a landing in the opposite direction. It's unlikely, therefore that you would ever have to land outside the airport after an EFATO.

Your Instructor is probably trying to save taxy time (and your money) by only using half the runway. He is wrong to do that, and you should tell him that you would rather have the safety of twice the runway in front of you if the engine fails.


MJ:ok:

[India Four Two]

He is wrong to do that, Up to a point. When I used to fly out of Calgary International and Runway 16 was in use, ALL light aircraft, which were based at the south end of the airport, used to depart from the mid-point of 16, which still gave you over 6000' available. It was the standard taxy clearance from the tower. Safe enough in my opinion (there is a golf course available off the end :ok:) and it avoided another mile of taxying.

However, if I was flying out of an airport with a 6000' runway and the instructor suggested using 5000', I would say no thanks.

[thing]

Your Instructor is probably trying to save taxy time (and your money) by only using half the runway.

Might not be absolutely correct. I fly from a 9,000' runway and there are various reasons that we take off from the half way point and land a long way into the runway, nothing to do with cost. (Although for night and instrument approaches we use the normal lighting system and landing points) I do agree with the 'runway behind you' school of thought; it's sometimes not that simple.

[Mach Jump]

India Four Two:

Ok, I'll concede that, with a long enough runway, you can achieve almost the same level of options after an EFATO. but, here in the UK, we only have one runway over 12,000', and that's not available for light aircraft.

Thing:

I'll also concede that there are special constraints at some airports, and I know that there are some at your base.

I was thinking of airports similar to nkt2000's local airport at Aberdeen. (6,400')


MJ:ok:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Your Instructor is probably trying to save taxy time (and your money) by only using half the runway. He is wrong to do that, and you should tell him that you would rather have the safety of twice the runway in front of you if the engine fails.
Well ... does one backtrack for the last few hundred feet?

Cold day, nice strong headwind, lightly loaded, someone on the ILS ... maybe a different answer to a hot day, dead calm, plane full to MTOW of passengers not used to light aircraft, nobody else wanting to use the runway.

[Mach Jump]

Well ... does one backtrack for the last few hundred feet?

I do, unless there are truly compelling reasons not to.


MJ:ok:

[barit1]

Just searched this thread for any mention of slip or skid.

If faced with a forced landing, if I had any choice in the matter, I'd aim for a close-in field. I might be too high, but I have both stick and rudder. And judicious use of cross-control can correct any excess-energy state I might have.

At my home field, one runway is none too long, and approach obstacles make it a little challenging. But no problem, I often maintain a slip down to 10 feet altitude. Doing this regularly is a good refresher exercise.

Once when taking off from a long runway I had a cowl latch failure at 50'. Quick decision time: make a tight circuit and risk an overheated engine, or land on the remaining runway? I saw no reason to cook the engine, when there seemed to be plenty of concrete ahead. So I slipped for a second or two and gently set it back down. No damage except to my ego - for accepting a cowl latch that clearly had seen better days. :ouch:

[thing]

I do, unless there are truly compelling reasons not to.:) Like trying to get off in a circuit with a call of 'downwind' every 30 seconds...

The 'other' place I fly from, which you probably know as well has a declared distance that is 480 metres shorter than the actual runway length. I believe there are technical CAA type reasons for this rather than the runway being duff, which it isn't. The backtrack past the threshold is 240 metres, I think I've managed to backtrack all the way once since I've been flying there...it's like trying to get out onto a busy road at rush hour...

Just searched this thread for any mention of slip or skid.I was just going to pull you up there for sloppy reading but realised I mentioned slipping in the other landing thread. I'm getting confused now. I thought I was on the How Do You Land thread but this is the other one.

[Mach Jump]

The 'other' place I fly from, which you probably know as well...

Haha Yes I know that one too, and I fly there often. I know it's not eaay sometimes to make it work, but I always take it right down to the last displaced threshold arrow at either end.


MJ:ok:

[thing]

You must taxi at Vne...

[Mach Jump]

You must taxi at Vne...

Hope you're not waiting up to see if I bite on that one? ;)


MJ:ok:

[FlyGooseFly!]

I'm a lapsed learner both fixed and rotary but spent many a happy hour accompanying my father in the left seat. He used to love going through the "oh dear the mill doesn't sound right - we'll have to put her down" routine for unsuspecting, especially novice passengers! He never did have a real EO emergency but the ONE thing I can remember him drumming into me was - LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD! To him and his CFI before him, any kind of turning attempt at low speed glide was - KISS OF DEATH!

So I felt sure I was about to witness a tragedy when an Olde 150 waddled almost silently over me at no more than 400ft and began a turn - ignoring the big field underneath him. I waited for the inevitable ( as I thought ) sound of rending metal but nothing came. Happily, a little while later I was chatting to the intrepid airman as he had executed an almost perfect landing in another field owned by a friend of mine. "How about my Dad's mantra" I asked "Ah, this field is big enough to take off from old chap" said he topping up the oil. However; several policeman appeared and embargoed his cunning plan and said aircraft departed on a lorry a few days later.

[9 lives]

I mentioned EFATO testing I flew in a Caravan, and, I posted:

The Cessna Flight Manuals I quickly reviewed (1979 C206, in particular) state a "Maximum" glide speed. It certainly won't be the best for an EFATO! If you attempt a flare and land from an EFATO at 50 feet, at the "maximum" glide speed in the flight manual of 65 knots, you're going to bend the plane. So, Cessna has wisely also provided a speed for EFATO; 80 knots. That's more like it.

BPF responded:

but I have never flown a SEP where a normal flare and landing could not be performed off an approach flown at Best Glide speed. I Have never flown a Caravan but I am guessing nobody else reading this has either.

I have immense respect for BPF, and although we don't always agree, I cannot ever think he's wrong! He's the instructor, not me - I learn from him.

My reference to flight manual information for the Caravan was not so much type specific, but more because it is one of the more recent approved singles, and it is a well refined flight manual. And, coming down to it, it is a single, and handles like a 172 Though feathering the prop sure stretches the glide ;).

However, I'm going to get semantic here, "best" glide is a misleading term here. Best for what? The glide you'd like for making the coast, or getting off the mountains to the foothills, will be a different glide [speed] than the one you'd like to touch down out of. Yes, BPF can do a nice landing out of a "maximum" glide speed from the flight manual. But, that slower speed is going to give you a very brief flare period - the plane is going to slow down fast! Less time to get it right, no second chance.

Practice a bit, glide in, but I'd give yourself "maximum" glide speed +10 knots the first approach, and work backward from there. If your first attempt to flare for a power off landing is from "maximum" glide speed, you might be in for a shock. as the bottom falls out.

I recall when I started flying STOL equipped Cessnas a lot. I thought to myself, wow, I bet this will glide more slowly, and indeed it would, but at the bottom of the glide, you've got nothing to flare with. You can change the pitch attitude, but you've not got much left to arrest the rate of descent.

So, my reference to the C206 speeds is a hint that Cessna knows that you need a bit more speed to make an EFATO landing successful. Similarly, the speeds for the Caravan hint that the "maximum" glide speed is not the best speed for an EFATO landing.

I opine (and look to BPF for his opinion too) that the established curriculum for the PPL would not include time for really exploring the variations of gliding speeds, and when to fly each. Therefore, it'll fall to the student to seek out that extra training. Student pilots [reading this] should ask their instructor for the additional training to explore these factors, and practice more.

If you get anything wrong about the flare for landing - you crash - maybe undershoot. If, on the other hand, you stored some extra energy for a more certain flare, albeit longer along your landing path, you might over run. A might over run, might be a crash, (maybe not). If it is, it will certainly be less injurious than the undershoot accident. This is where the practice, and preplanning comes in.

This morning, I took off slightly downwind, simply because that was the direction which was not over the completely built up area, with nowhere to go. Preplanning...

[Big Pistons Forever]

should ask their instructor for the additional training to explore these factors, and practice more.

If you get anything wrong about the flare for landing - you crash - maybe undershoot. If, on the other hand, you stored some extra energy for a more certain flare, albeit longer along your landing path, you might over run. A might over run, might be a crash, (maybe not). If it is, it will certainly be less injurious than the undershoot accident. This is where the practice, and preplanning comes in.





I really like the earlier poster who noted the advice he received was "When the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane" . You can always buy a new airplane but your wife/husband and children can't buy a new you.

I firmly believe that the paramount factor in a "for real" forced approach is to maintain control of the aircraft. To do that the pitch attitude has to be sufficiently nose down that a airspeed safely above stalling will be maintained. After that the exact "right" airspeed is of secondary importance.

I agree with Step Turns assertion that extra airspeed is in general a good thing. I would suggest that there are 2 things that pilots must pay particular attention to:

1) They must resist the temptation to raise the nose to stretch the glide. This is a recipe for the stall/spin/die scenario

2) They should also resist the temptation to make a normal flare to landing if this will result in the aircraft flying past the intended touch point, a definite possibility if you are high and fast. If you are in this situation make the aircraft land even if this means smashing the aircraft into the ground with an aggressive pitch down.

The best way to generate the personal skills that you need in any of the forced landing scenarios is IMO, to make a point of doing some of your normal landings with no power starting at circuit altitude or greater. Often this is not practicable because of other traffic, but for when things are quiet make a point of closing the throttle at different parts of the circuit. This will not only give you the skills to survive an engine failure but will also improve your normal landings.

Finally as I noted earlier " I do not like one size fits all scenarios". Step has a gazziilion hours on his Cessna 150. My C 150 M POH gives only one "maximum" glide speed, it is 60 kts. Personally I can not envision any scenario were 60 kts would not give enough energy to make a normal flare and landing so I would would be very interested in his thoughts on where this would be an issue, because I lack the flight test background that he has.

[9 lives]

My C 150 M POH gives only one "maximum" glide speed, it is 60 kts. Personally I can not envision any scenario were 60 kts would not give enough energy to make a normal flare and landing

I agree, from an established glide at 60 knots, a practiced pilot can make a fine power off landing. There won't be a lot of time to get the flare right, but enough.

However, as the topic is EFATO, and the differences in that situation, are in my opinion, under trained, I opine that many pilots will have a more difficult time making a good power off landing, if after takeoff, while climbing at 60 knots, and at 100 feet, the engine stops. In that scenario, you have to get the nose down really fast. The instant you get the nose down, you'll be at about 50 feet, and you'd better be ready to flare. There will be no time to establish a glide as such.

It all works, but requires a lot more skill. Thus, I like to encourage a bit more speed for climb away, when obstacle clearance and noise are not a concern. Similarly, when gliding down without out concern for "making" the only suitable landing area, those few extra knots are money in the bank when you come to flare.

My opinion comes from experience. My two EFATO's were happily with a reserve of speed from a flatter than could be departure, and worked. I know several people who did book or steeper departures, and it did not. I believe that a good instructor will assure that their student is familiar with these factors.....

[fireflybob]

For many years my father, a veteran instructor, flew C150s etc from an airport which had a runway circa 7,500 feet long. Light aircraft would "normally" depart from an intersection which gave about 4,500 feet as the traffic was mixed and there was only one taxiway to the end of the runway and this practice was to avoid conflicts with IFR scheduled traffic on slot times etc.

For him this was a big compromise as he believed in always using the longest possible run into or near wind.

However for night flying he always insisted on full length.

Remember well sitting in the flying school having a cuppa to hear the engine of the a/c he was flying come to an abrupt stop. About 100 feet after take off the engine failed completely (I think a cylinder had blown off or some such thing) and he easily landed back on the runway with room to spare but if the intersection departure had been used he would have been off airport.

[DeltaV]

I guess preparedness is everything. If you've considered the possibility of an EFATO and thought about what you might have to do in the eventuality you'll certainly be quicker in adopting the actions.

I've never had an EFATO but I have had a partial loss, lost a cylinder, but since the aircraft was still able to climb I flew a tight circuit to land back where I started. A little sweaty but no great drama.

One thing I have wondered about is this insistence that we push the nose down. Now I realised that early in the takeoff when you're on the back side of the drag curve that's the thing to do, and maybe at all phases with very low energy types, but if established in the climb and trimmed out why not let the trim tab fly the plane while you get busy on other aspects? My best L/D is at 56 kts and I trim for 60 kts in the climb. If I pull the throttle to idle and leave it to the tab the speed drops, the nose comes down and we settle in a descent, trimmed still at 60kts. So in such circumstances why not just relax any fore/aft grip on the stick/wheel? Or is a positive push seen as the opening action in taking decisive control of the outcome?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You will be surprised at how vigorously the nose must be lowered if the engine fails at climb-out speed in, say, a PA38. Not lowering it will kill you, as a guy I knew discovered at Barton a few years back. He did get out a mayday though, when instead he should have flown the bleedin' aeroplane!

If you have never had an EFATO you may wonder how you will react if it happens. Will you freeze or will you get the nose down? I found instinct and training took over - there was no thinking involved; as the power dissipated, forward went the stick (aeros experience might be a help here as energy management in a low powered type like the Chipmunk is ingrained!).

I know we practice for it a lot (at least we should!) but having the power go when you're not expecting it isn't quite the same. That's why we should expect it - on every take off. Be surprised if it keeps running!

[thing]

That's why we should expect it - on every take off. Be surprised if it keeps running! ^Wot he said.

[9 lives]

Thing's post reminds me; If the engine quits, and you're committed to a forced landing ahead, consider pulling the mixture, and switching off the mags. It has been known that the engine sparks a bit to life, just enough to lure the pilot to thinking they can fly out of it after all, and they give up what otherwise would have been a good forced approach. Then it quits again, and they have a lot less to play with to make a decent "landing" out of it.

Resist the impulse to change the plan....

[fireflybob]

Partial engine failures are 3 times more likely than total failures and are potentially more hazardous if not handled correctly.

The Australians have some interesting stats and papers on this topic:-

Between 2000 and 2010, there were nine fatal accidents resulting in 20 people losing their lives as a result of a response to a partial power loss soon after takeoff. Importantly, there were no fatal accidents where the engine initially completely failed.


Pilots warned of partial power loss dangers (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2014/pilots-warned-of-partial-power-loss-dangers.aspx)

More detailed information here:-

Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single-engine aircraft (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4115270/ar-2010-055_no3.pdf)

[Big Pistons Forever]

I agree, from an established glide at 60 knots, a practiced pilot can make a fine power off landing. There won't be a lot of time to get the flare right, but enough.

However, as the topic is EFATO, and the differences in that situation, are in my opinion, under trained, I opine that many pilots will have a more difficult time making a good power off landing, if after takeoff, while climbing at 60 knots, and at 100 feet, the engine stops. In that scenario, you have to get the nose down really fast. The instant you get the nose down, you'll be at about 50 feet, and you'd better be ready to flare. There will be no time to establish a glide as such.

.

Initial flight training is going from no knowledge and skills to enough knowledge and skills to fly safely. As experience grows so does a pilots capability to expand their skills. But the core purpose of the PPL is to make sure the student has a solid set of foundation skills and knowledge. The advanced stuff can only happen after the basics are nailed down.

So training for the low altitude EFATO scenario that Step turn has raised is really a subset of a larger issue, namely "what should I as a PPL be practicing". There are a great many things that could be reviewed and expanded upon in further training. IMO the best way to approach this question involves judging the probability and severity of the event you are practicing.

As Step Turn very correctly pointed out a complete engine failure at very low altitudes will be mean that the transition to the glide and then the flare to landing will happen very fast and thus an EFATO at 50 feet would be more demanding than a EFATO at 200 feet with the aircraft landing straight ahead in both circumstances.

What is the probability of this happening ? My thought is that it is very small as the time from rotation to say 200 feet is maybe 20 seconds.

What is the severity of the event ? My thought is that as long as the nose gets lowered the airplane won't stall, however the likelihood of a heavy landing with probable aircraft damage is fairly high. However I think it is unlikely anyone is going to get hurt.

Personally I am OK with the consequences and the fact that the window of vulnerability is so small.

However if one doesn't agree with me it would seem that the only way to "train" for this event is to have the instructor quickly close the throttle at say 50 feet on an actual takeoff. Personally I think this is a bad idea as the potential for this going bad far out ways the training value obtained.

When teaching the EFATO as part of the PPL I do mention the challenges of a low altitude failure but realistically it all happens so fast I doubt my student is going to remember. What I hope will save the day is robust general handling skills, but if the airplane gets bent and nobody gets hurt it is still a win in my book.

Bottom line: If you see a C 152/172/Pa28 sitting behind the hanger with a busted off nosewheel and other damage indicative of a hard landing it could be a result of a badly handled low altitude engine failure.
However I would suggest that it is a 100 times more likely that the damage was the result of a plain unstable too fast approach followed by a nose wheel first touchdown followed by increasingly violent proposing until something broke.:ugh:

Therefor if you are looking for something to practice, go do some circuits and be demanding of yourself. Don't be happy until the landings are on centerline with the aircraft straight and at a nice tail low landing attitude.

Finally a bit off topic but one thing that never seems to get talked about much is rejecting takeoffs before the aircraft reaches flying speed. There have been plenty of after takeoff crashes where, in hindsight, the lack of engine power would have been evident during the takeoff roll.

I also should note that the most important part of a rejected takeoff is to first immediately retard the throttle to idle even if the engine has stopped.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It all works, but requires a lot more skill. Thus, I like to encourage a bit more speed for climb away, when obstacle clearance and noise are not a concern. Similarly, when gliding down without out concern for "making" the only suitable landing area, those few extra knots are money in the bank when you come to flare.



I very much respect Step Turn's considerable flying and flight test experience but in this instance I do not agree with his advice.

Altitude is time and options, therefore the higher you are the more time you have to get the aircraft under control and set at a safe gliding attitude and higher gives you more options on where you can go.

The maximum height in the shortest time will be achieved at Vy airspeed so that is why I tell my students to hold this speed until they are at least 1000 feet AGL.

Climbing at a higher airspeed will increase the time to an altitude where you have better options and increase your vulnerability.

[Pace]

Climbing at a higher airspeed will increase the time to an altitude where you have better options and increase your vulnerability.

BPF

just a couple of points to consider? If you have a massive runway under you frankly it doesn't matter if you are 50 feet or 200 Feet plus?

Infact you are better being low because with an engine failure you will want to get it down and stopped on the remaining runway easier to do from 50 feet than 200 feet plus.

If you are over dense forest it makes little difference whether you are at 200 feet or 50 feet you will go down into the trees for both.

Lastly if you are climbing to get the maximum altitude as quickly as possible you will surely be using max power rather than a cruise climb setting?

Surely your biggest chance of a failure will be at full power rather than a reduced cruise climb setting.

Do you go for a max max stress setting to get maximum climb to altitude or a reduced power setting which stresses the engine less but takes longer to climb ?
Its a juggling act ?

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Surely your biggest chance of a failure will be at full power rather than a reduced cruise climb setting.

Do you go for a max max stress setting to get maximum climb to altitude or a reduced power setting which stresses the engine less but takes longer to climb ?
Its a juggling act ?

Pace

From the Lycoming Flyer Operating tips

Most normally aspirated engines are rated at full power
for takeoff and climb indefinitely, provided engine temperatures
and pressures are within the green arc area of the
engine instruments


Continental has similar advice in their operating manuals. Since the engine manufacturers do not advise reducing power for takeoff or climb I see no reason to sacrifice the climb performance that you get with full power to at least circuit height. I can see, especially for the bigger engines, a climb power setting would be advantageous after reaching a safe height but I climb with full power to 1000 feet in all the non turbo SEP's I fly.

[rolling20]

Whilst the chances of an engine failure are slim, survivability also depends on the surrounding area. It amazes me how many airports have housing/buildings so close to the approach/depature path. A clear path on the runway heading will increase our chances rather considerably until height has been gained.
As an aside, I remember a fatal crash in the 90's where a pilot suffered engine failure. ( I am not sure if it was EFATO).He set himself up to land on a road in an industrial estate I believe. Engine picked up, he attempted to climb and then the engine failed again. He unfortunately crashed and lost his life. I was always taught, if the engine has gone and you are committed to a forced landing, execute it accordingly. If it picks up, never, repeat never try to climb away!

[fireflybob]

It amazes me how many airports have housing/buildings so close to the approach/depature path.

At the local airfield where I fly there was a public enquiry for a proposed building development near the airfield. The airfield objected due to flight safety. The development still went ahead.

So now if we want to avoid flying over the built up area you have to commence a climbing turn at circa 200 feet to do so.

Not to mention the noise complaints! When the houses had just been built we had one new occupant call to complain about the noise. The CFI said "Are you going to complain to the solicitor that did your house conveyancing that you were not informed that the house was on the climb out/approach to an active airfield whose licence was issued in 1933?"....deathly hush from the other end.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

if the engine has gone and you are committed to a forced landing, execute it accordingly. If it picks up, never, repeat never try to climb away!

Well usually, but not always.

If the initial failure leaves you with nowhere to go that'll be survivable, but after the engine picks up you can make it to a better place to crash, take that option!

[rolling20]

Well usually, but not always.

If the initial failure leaves you with nowhere to go that'll be survivable, but after the engine picks up you can make it to a better place to crash, take that option! This poor chap was too low when he made that fatal choice IIRC

[skyhawk_norway]

Many good advices here to improve the chances of succeeding with a forced landing after EFATO; Always use all available runway is one thing, and climb at Vy to gain as much height as possible on the shortest amount of time after takeoff.

But what about flaps settings at takeoff? I was taught to take off with flaps on 10 on our C172... I was also taught that if the engine quits over runway, and its possible to land on remaining runway - the immidiate action should be nose down, throttle out, full flaps...

What is your opinions regarding take off with flaps vs. without flaps, when it comes to give better margins of succeeding with a forced landing after EFATO?

(Sorry my poor english)

[9 lives]

Tuk, Skyhawk Norway, poor English forgiven, 'cause most of us are even less good at Norwegian!

BPF, who really knows his stuff, and I differ a bit on these points, and that's fair enough - it makes for great discussion here! I can assure everyone that neither of us would challenge the technique of the other, were we right seat to him.

The key here is for everyone to think about this, an the possible outcomes from the departure technique you have chosen. I have had one engine failure at ten feet up, and I just put it back down. But higher up than that, choices may be more limited, and affected by the pilot's technique.

For those who are interested in learning more on this topic, I encourage some self study of the "Height Velocity Curve" for helicopters, and what it means to the pilot. The concept is the same for a fixed wing aircraft, just the numbers are different. When you understand the concept, then apply it to the aircraft you fly, and think about the possibility that you get yourself into that "curve" - perhaps needlessly.

Sometimes, you 'gotta, but other times, you can minimize the effect. Altitude is time and choice, though speed is stored energy - you want some of each!

[Jan Olieslagers]

what about flaps settings at takeoff?That must depend on aircraft type. Talking only for my category (two-seater high wing microlight, 80 HP Rotax, 150-160 km/h cruise):

My instructor (who was a PPL'er before flying microlights) taught me to take off with half flaps. Then at my license test flight, the examiner, after confirming I passed, had me take off with full flaps and observe how much less runway length was used - his reasoning was that the sooner you lift off, less energy will be spent on rolling resistance. This technique does require pushing the nose down immediately after lift-off, but I do imagine it gains me most altitude in the shortest time. Which is what is most wanted - my field too has an all built-up area right after take-off, in one direction.

Edited to add: I was also taught to take off with full stick back. As soon as the nose wheel lifts off (perhaps at 70 km/h indicated), I lower the nose until the horizon is where I know it will be during sustained climb, then I patiently wait for the main wheels to lift too, which will be with some 80-90 km/h indicated. More "stick forward" at perhaps 10-20 feet above the runway, and gently build up speed while reducing flaps, and climb out at 110-120 km/h - VSI will show anything between 4 and 7 m/s. All this with full power on the Rotax 912, power is only reduced when a powerless glide to a safe field is assured (or at least looks so).

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I also use the extra speed VS. extra height procedure on take off.

( A ) Better control, and easier transition from the climb attitude to the gliding attitude if the engine suddenly quits.

( B ) Better forward visibility.

( 3 ) Better engine cooling.

I was going to post this....


For those who are interested in learning more on this topic, I encourage some self study of the "Height Velocity Curve" for helicopters, and what it means to the pilot. The concept is the same for a fixed wing aircraft, just the numbers are different. When you understand the concept, then apply it to the aircraft you fly, and think about the possibility that you get yourself into that "curve" - perhaps needlessly.

But step turn beat me to it.