Engine Failure After Takeoff - Are YOU ready for it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine Failure After Takeoff - Are YOU ready for it?
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Never think about it before takeoff, right?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
I fly Class 1 profiles for departure and landing. Not mandatory but safer.
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.
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.
Last edited by India Four Two; 12th Mar 2015 at 22:53.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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
. 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.
In reality there is very little terrain that is truly uncrashable in a light aircraft.
"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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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 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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't EXPECT the engine to quit! Never think about it before takeoff, right?
? 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.
Last edited by thing; 13th Mar 2015 at 08:47.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 hangar. 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.
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 hangar. 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.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 13th Mar 2015 at 09:54.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?