Originally Posted by
Shaggy Sheep Driver
The engine that part-failed on me ticked all those boxes. So did the Lycoming in the PA38 in which the guy I knew died when it stopped at 300 feet.
From what I recall the engine partial failure left you with enough power to maintain level flight and re-position for a landing. I do not mean to make light of the fact that you successfully dealt with a very significant emergency but the engine did not "fail" in the way people are talking about in the other thread.
As for the Pa 38 crash the accident report stated the cause of the crash was
The most likely cause of the engine stoppage was stiffness of the fuel selector valve causing it to be in an intermediate position, reducing fuel flow to a level too low to sustain continuous engine operation.
I would suggest that there was at least some indication that the fuel valve was not working properly and thus the potential to have prevented the engine failure was present. I also find it hard to believe that an engine starved of fuel did not give some indication that there was something wrong on the takeoff run.
I think it is also very unfortunate the accident report stated that there appeared to be no attempt to lower the nose after the failure. The climb attitude was held until the aircraft stalled, although tragically the pilots only reaction appeared to do the least important thing of all, make a radio call.
I realize that 2 people died in this accident and my remarks may seem insensitive but I believe this accident has lessons that should not be glossed over.
Engines with properly selected fuel selectors don't stop. If there is any doubt about how the selector feels or whether it is properly positioned than you should not takeoff.
As has been already mentioned in many other threads the first action by the pilot when confronted by an EFATO must be to lower the nose. If you do nothing else but keep the wings level you will probably survive, but letting the aircraft stall at low altitude is a death sentence.