Engine Failure After Takeoff - Are YOU ready for it?

[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

More detailed information here:-

Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single-engine aircraft

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Step Turn

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 hangar 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Step Turn

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]

Originally Posted by Pace

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.