What would you do - engine failure on climb
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bucharest
Age: 44
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you do - engine failure on climb
Hello!
SLF question here out of curiosity: say you have an engine non catastrophic failure while climbing through 3000 ft or so out of a small not so travelled airport. Departure field a few miles behind and a large airport some 50 miles ahead. Departure field with shorter runway, low category emergency services etc. Large airport with long runways, full emergency services plus maintenance facilities. Would you turn to the departure field or fly on one engine to the larger one? And how would you get to that decision?
Would it matter if departure field is somewhere on a vast plain vs between the mountains? (say Innsbruck with both Salzburg and Munich close by?)
SLF question here out of curiosity: say you have an engine non catastrophic failure while climbing through 3000 ft or so out of a small not so travelled airport. Departure field a few miles behind and a large airport some 50 miles ahead. Departure field with shorter runway, low category emergency services etc. Large airport with long runways, full emergency services plus maintenance facilities. Would you turn to the departure field or fly on one engine to the larger one? And how would you get to that decision?
Would it matter if departure field is somewhere on a vast plain vs between the mountains? (say Innsbruck with both Salzburg and Munich close by?)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficult to be specific. It is not so black & white. It's a command decision and could depend on many factors such as weather, familiarity etc. The major consideration is a safe landing. By the time you have secured the a/c and run various checklists it will take about the time you fly 50-70nm. Rather than spend that time positioning to a dodgy airfield you can spend the same time running Cx lists en-route to a better option.
Bottums Up
Australian Civil Aviation Order 20.6 gives guidance to the continuation of flight post an engine failure.
"d" above could be quite restrictive if in a twin engined aircraft.
3.2 The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or its rotation is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable. Relevant factors must include the following:
(a) nature of the malfunctioning and the possible mechanical difficulties which may be encountered if the flight is continued;
(aa) the nature and extent of any city, town or populous area over which the aircraft is likely to fly;
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(c) altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should another engine fail;
(e) relative characteristics of aerodromes available for landing;
(f) weather conditions en route and at possible landing points;
(g) air traffic congestion;
(h) type of terrain, including whether the flight is likely to be over water;
(i) familiarity of the pilot with the aerodrome to be used.
(a) nature of the malfunctioning and the possible mechanical difficulties which may be encountered if the flight is continued;
(aa) the nature and extent of any city, town or populous area over which the aircraft is likely to fly;
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(c) altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should another engine fail;
(e) relative characteristics of aerodromes available for landing;
(f) weather conditions en route and at possible landing points;
(g) air traffic congestion;
(h) type of terrain, including whether the flight is likely to be over water;
(i) familiarity of the pilot with the aerodrome to be used.
Too true CC. In the OP's scenario we don't really have enough information to decide if 'd' is trumped by 'e' or any of the others.
The way I am picturing it 'e' will probably trump d as the departure port is a small out post airport, the longer wider runway with better emergency services and approaches is attractive to me and I imagine a good distance for completing checklists etc. ( I'm not imagining terrain or weather en route)
We probably need a whole lot more info about the airfields and the weather and traffic and the nature of the failure and the terrain enroute and at both ports though to make the discussion meaningful.
You could do a PhD on that and hardly touch the sides. Most people won't know the process of how they come to the decision. My bet is that all the decision making models that the airlines have are rarely used in dynamic situations like this and a much quicker process is naturally used by the P in C. If you google 'Naturalistic Decision Making' and then click on the Wiki link you will get lots of info on the process I'm talking about. Experience is the key factor in this type of DM which explains a lot about why more experienced people behave differently than less experienced people whether it's flying a plane, changing a light bulb, or driving on the motorway.
The way I am picturing it 'e' will probably trump d as the departure port is a small out post airport, the longer wider runway with better emergency services and approaches is attractive to me and I imagine a good distance for completing checklists etc. ( I'm not imagining terrain or weather en route)
We probably need a whole lot more info about the airfields and the weather and traffic and the nature of the failure and the terrain enroute and at both ports though to make the discussion meaningful.
And how would you get to that decision?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the departure runway long enough for a single engine landing?
EMS cat. is a bit of a red herring, if it's good enough to operate out of its good enough to operate in to.
EMS cat. is a bit of a red herring, if it's good enough to operate out of its good enough to operate in to.
Even if it is long enough for the s/e landing it isn't enough information for us to come up with an answer for the OP. Eg it might be long enough but with a 25kt crosswind from the same side as the failed engine while the other airport has five knots straight down the strip. We just don't know enough to make the decision.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A few degrees South
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One needs to define 'suitable' airport.
In this case, it is mostly up to the pilot(s).
The same QRH, which states 'land at the nearest suitable airport', states you have to use sound justement in emergencies.
With an engine out, you are in such an emergency.
Why do people always try to fly planes using SOP's only?
What about a bit of common sense?
In this case, it is mostly up to the pilot(s).
The same QRH, which states 'land at the nearest suitable airport', states you have to use sound justement in emergencies.
With an engine out, you are in such an emergency.
Why do people always try to fly planes using SOP's only?
What about a bit of common sense?
Unless the cause is fuel contamination, what are the odds of a second engine failing on the same flight? Almost zip. So as long as the aircraft can clear terrain with the remaining engine not above max continuous power, the case for proceeding to a good distant airport trumps a return to a marginal airport.
Max continuous means what it says - a good engine will run at that power setting all day if necessary. Often pilots are conditioned to forget that fact by certain instructors who want us to 'baby' their engines.
On the other hand, if there is evidence of fuel contamination (fluctuating fuel flow, rough running etc), or the remaining engine is showing signs of stress (like overheating as opposed to just sounding a bit louder than what you are accustomed to), it's a no- brainer - put it down asap.
Max continuous means what it says - a good engine will run at that power setting all day if necessary. Often pilots are conditioned to forget that fact by certain instructors who want us to 'baby' their engines.
On the other hand, if there is evidence of fuel contamination (fluctuating fuel flow, rough running etc), or the remaining engine is showing signs of stress (like overheating as opposed to just sounding a bit louder than what you are accustomed to), it's a no- brainer - put it down asap.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you do - engine failure on climb
Carrying a sick engine is like carrying a sick co-pilot : the SOPs and common sense dealing with pilot incapacitation can be usefully transposed to this situation.
Make sure the sick engine is taken care of and does no more damage; radio ahead to let ATC know your problem; ask for vectors; aim for a long straight approach to reduce high workload; do your checklists early; make max use of any CRM available; land at the airport and runway of your choice - it's an emergency and you make command decisions.
Make sure the sick engine is taken care of and does no more damage; radio ahead to let ATC know your problem; ask for vectors; aim for a long straight approach to reduce high workload; do your checklists early; make max use of any CRM available; land at the airport and runway of your choice - it's an emergency and you make command decisions.
