Engine failure after takeoff

[antonybradford]

As part of my final year project at the University of Salford, I have chosen to investigate Engine failures after takeoff. How do various procedures vary, and which is best? Is there a better way to go about such an event?

I have heard over again that turning 180 after takeoff is frowned upon, but what if you took off over water and at 900ft your engine cut out? What would you do?

Any personal thoughts or information on airline SOP's would be gratefully received.

Antony Bradford

[INLAK]

An engine failure on take off is a well practised scenario.
Without going into an particular airline or type specific SOP's the general flow is as follows:

1) Control the aircraft, keeping it on the runway centreline.
2) Rotate and establish a positive climb.
3)Around 400` recall or ECAM actions can be initiated to secure the engine or extinguish any fire. Basically thrust lever to idle, master switch off and then fire swithes and extinguishers if required.
4)Once completed and above Minimum Flap Retraction Altitude (~1000`) accelerate and clean up the aircraft.
5)Once all this is done and safely flying, complete any remaining checklists and prepare for a return forr landing.

Turning 180' around is not a good idea and would probably never be done.
Your scenario of a failure at 900` over water would be a relatively easy procedure. Height and speed have been attained and no obstacles to worry about. Worst case failure is a total thrust loss at V1 of a critical engine.

[antonybradford]

Many thanks for your input, it certainly has got the brain working.

Unfortunately I am only a PPL holder at the moment, though as part of our course we are covering APTL theory, hence i do have a reasonable depth of knowledge about key areas regarding the subject.

What if you were:

1 In a single engine aircraft and suffer an engine failure over sea at 900ft agl?

2 Where in a twin piston engine aircraft, or rather one whereby full thrust on the remaining engine is not an option due to the couple setup by loss of an engine?

Further more, how many pilots (and please be has honest as you can here), actually admit to fully going through a "what if.." stage before takeoff?

Any thoughts chaps and chapesses?

[PLovett]

antonybradford

Without going into chapter and verse may I suggest you look at your topic under some sub-headings.

There is a world of difference between transport category aircraft and general aviation aircraft (both single and twin engined) when it comes to engine failures. The first has, if the figures have been correctly computed, a guarantee of flight. The second is problematic for both types.

There is a wealth of information contained in crash investigation reports on the dangers of trying to turn back to the airfield after an engine failure in a single engine aircraft. I hope the link below works as it is one such report. There is another contained in the same data base of a Cherokee 6 fully loaded that suffered an engine failure on takeoff from Hamilton Island. All died when the pilot lost control trying to turn back.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/AAIR/aair200601688.aspx

With twin engine GA aircraft the essential thing to flight is maintaining better than the single engine best rate of climb speed or "blue line". For most pilots in that class of aircraft it is the go/no go speed. Engine failure below it then close throttles and stop or land despite the probable consequences of an airstrip overrun. Better that than a loss of control in flight. The blue line speed is for a lot of pilots their gear up speed and if an engine failure occurs you do the PHASE 1 checks and attempt to fly away. Temperature and weight may conspire against that but it can be done.

Your comment about the coupling problem would suggest a VMCA problem and there is no way any pilot should be there in flight but perhaps I misunderstood your comment.

Hope some of this helps.

[antonybradford]

VMCA? I’m not familiar with this abbreviation.

I am aware that simply quoting the title brings to mind multiple factors such as aircraft type, etc etc; however I am just trying to string together some basis for my project.

Something which is important to me is defining engine failure after takeoff. From brakes release to the minimum safety altitude. Surely then turning back with such a height to land reciprocal, given adequate / satisfactory wind velocities etc, would be an option?

Any opinions here?

[PLovett]

VMCA? I’m not familiar with this abbreviation.


The minimum speed at which an aircraft is directionally and laterally controllable with one engine inoperative and windmilling. It also involves flying the aircraft with not more than a 5 degree angle of bank towards the inoperative engine, full power on the remaining engine, landing gear retracted and flaps in the takeoff position.

In real terms below this speed the aircraft cannot be kept either straight or from rolling towards the inoperative engine. You will run out of rudder and aileron and the aircraft will turn into a smoking hole in the ground.

The decision to abandon flight after takeoff but before blue line is contentious with some pilots. A Cessna "Pilot Safety and Warning Supplements" booklet that I have recommends retracting the undercarriage and continuing the flight (also doing the PHASE 1 actions!). A friend of mine who has many thousands of hours in general aviation multi-engine aircraft also uses this. The company I work for uses blue line as its go/no go speed and the speed where the undercarriage is retracted. Given the conditions where we fly it is unlikely that an aircraft would be saved by trying to fly it away with an engine failure below blue line.

[renard]

On a multi engined aircraft, then there shouldn't be any need to turn back.

With a light twin e.g. Seneca, which can have poor SE capability - I remember a figure of 15nm to get to 1000AAL at max wt - you would either climb to altitude and return in the circuit or land ahead.

The big difficulty with turning back in a single or light twin is you are turning a lot more than 180 degrees as you have to get lined up with the runway.

To do this quickly - in a single you are time limited - you need a very high bank angle. This will put your stall speed up quite a lot with the increased load factor, so you have to really drop the nose of the aircraft to do it.

This is not for the faint hearted!

Try it on a flight sim on a PC and you will see it is difficult - I wouldn't do it

[pulse1]

One of the biggest factors in deciding to turn back in a single is the length of the runway. With 2000m and a modest breeze you might make it. With 800m you certainly would not.

[HappyJack260]

One of the biggest factors in deciding to turn back in a single is the length of the runway. With 2000m and a modest breeze you might make it. With 800m you certainly would not.
Personally, having experienced an EFATO, I wouldn't be too worried about the length of the runway. Why would you want to think only about the runway if you got a nice big flat area to land in - the airfield? IF you can make it back to the field, you can land anywhere you like and in any direction - it's probably a better place to land than in the housing/industrial estate next door. But if there's level ground nearby you may be better off landing there, into wind (say, 50kts groundspeed) than on the field downwind (say 80 knots groundspeed). And think about stuffing it straight down - even if you run off the end of the runway and through the fence you'll be doig so into wind and the chainlink should slow you a little...
The big IF is the question of making it back to the field. This depends on your height and/or speed. It's a useful exercise to go to altitude and set yourself up in the take-off configuration, at your usual climb speed, then work out how long it takes for a 180 (at 40 - 45 degrees of bank) and how much height you lose in the turn. That determines your minimum height to attempt the turn. Try it for 90 degrees too - so you can work out where you have to be to try anything more than straight ahead.
And before you line up each flight, brief yourself on what you'd do in the event of an EFATO. What height to turn (and which way - preferably into wind)? Where are there places to land off the airfield? Get a briefing from someone who knows the area and have a look at an aerial photo if it's not your local field. And work out what vital actions to do in the few seconds between the failure happening and it becoming an unrecoverable disaster.
The most important in a single are:
1 Fly the plane - don't let it stall - keep the nose down and the speed up
2 Fly the plane - keep it balanced with rudder
3 Throttle to idle
4 Think about gear and flaps - up or down - and how long to make the change?
5 Fuel & Switches off (after Mayday call, if you have time)
6 Fly the plane
7 Good luck!

And remember, if you can walk away, it's a good landing. If they can use the plane again afterwards, it's an excellent landing! (and, for the record, I didn't walk away from mine...if fact walking unaided took 6 months. But I survived, thank God).

[W.R.A.I.T.H]

Interesting topic

Have a look into accident reports where this was the cause, G-ARWE and G-BGJL spring to mind, but there will have been a lot more. Always interesting reading with lots of points to mention.

[pulse1]

Happy Jack 260,

You say:
The big IF is the question of making it back to the field. This depends on your height and/or speed.

Surely it also depends on how far away the field is i.e. how long the runway is, or how big the airfield is or, if you like, how far have I travelled from the field to reach 900'.

I usually fly from a field which is 800m long and not much wider than the runway. There is no way I could reach the field with an EFAT at 900' unless there was a very strong wind which might make landing downwind a bit dicey.

Flying from, say EGHH, I could probably just about make it back to the runway but could easily make it onto the airfield. However, in recent years there have been two disastrous failures to do so there.
This shows the importance of your advice to:

And before you line up each flight, brief yourself on what you'd do in the event of an EFATO. In my view one should be reviewing it continuously throughout the climb, as one does on a glider launch when this is a much more likely event. This discussion is a timely reminder for me to make sure that I do.

Anyway, it is always good to get advice from those who have experienced it for real. I hope that you fully recovered now.

[HappyJack260]

Happy Jack 260,
You say:
Surely it also depends on how far away the field is i.e. how long the runway is, or how big the airfield is or, if you like, how far have I travelled from the field to reach 900'.
Good point - yes. I fly a Pitts S-2C which climbs like an angel and glides like a manhole cover. On a windy day one pilot took off on a 1200m runway and was at just under 3000' before passing the upwind end. On the other hand, you could be at 1000' at the runway threshold and be down less than 300m from the start. But in a Cherokee you'd probably be some way away by the time you got to 900'.
I also agree your suggestion of the continuous "what if" self-brief on climb-out - something I do now, if only out of fear of another experience!!

[redsnail]

If you're really keen and have a bit of time, dig out the investigation and analysis of the King Air crash at Sydney Airport in the early '80s. It's a litany of what not to do post EFATO.

It's chilling reading.

[Daysleeper]

On a multi engined aircraft, then there shouldn't be any need to turn back.
With a light twin e.g. Seneca, which can have poor SE capability - I remember a figure of 15nm to get to 1000AAL at max wt - you would either climb to altitude and return in the circuit or land ahead

IMHO not enough light A/C pilots give thought to this option. In many twin pistons the second engine will simply take the aircraft directly to the scene of the crash and it is far better to pick the crash site of your choice than to lose the battle with Vmca and go in vertically.

As for "turn backs" post engine failure in a single. The RAF used (still do?) to do those in the Bulldog BUT it required skill practice and even then was a high risk manouver. For the average PPL it would almost inevitably be fatal so follow the training and land straight ahead or as near as poss.

[john_tullamarine]

We have a couple of interesting articles on turn backs in the Tech Log sticky .. worth a read if you are interested in the risks.

[Oh that's super!]

I don't like to sound harsh, but may I suggest that you (the opening poster) familiarise yourself with aircraft performance matters before venturing into the SOPs etc? VMCA is one of the basic stuff... You will need at last some basic understanding of those things before you can constructively study it in a project.

[antonybradford]

We have a couple of interesting articles on turn backs in the Tech Log sticky .. worth a read if you are interested in the risks.

Sounds interesting to me. If anyone has anything useful then please do forward to me : [email protected]

Regards,

Antony

[antonybradford]

I have to admit upon first glance one could be easily mistaken for believing this topic has a hard and fast answer. My personal opinion is that no is not the answer to turning back, although I agree that in some cases there is no way that turning back could be safe.

The trouble is, as with a lot of aspects in life - the human.

As much as we plan such an event, we all suffer a few moments of shock before consciously thinking through what needs to be done. This "human" error is something that we can only minimise through prior training and development. However still in what we happily call a developed industry, EFATO are still catching some of us out. My thoughts on this are around the following:

1) Weather - current ambient conditions at TO
2) Airfield characteristics and surroundings
3) Training
4) Single + Multi crew reactions

Unfortunately I believe that all of these interact so much, that you need almost to be lucky to get all ticks in the boxes. If you don’t the chain is broken and emergences such as EFATO becomes a bit more of a problem.

[Brian304]

Well on my opinion I think that an engine failure should be avoided at all costs, even though most flying schools have really old battered and worn out aircrafts which will still be used. But if you have an engine failure at low altitude such as 6-900ft I would just ignore the transponder and just give a breif small radio call with a mayday and your callsign, as they would know where you are. And just land the god damn thing on the best thing you can find, such as a nice green field which we all love to see. If you have altitude lik 1500ft to 2000ft then you can do a short circuit and land back on the runway, as most airports such as kissimmee airport in US don't have clear green lands for quite far away, so instead if there was an engine failure you would be going into the town centre or buildings. But do all your checks properly and fly the plane properly as if it was your baby then nothing should really happen.

BRI ^^

[AtoBsafely]

You want to be able to walk away. If you have two engines you will be able to fly away if you follow the right steps regarding aircraft handling/speed. (But there are different certification requirements for transport category aircraft and light twins). A single engine aircraft is heading down; it is just a matter of where it will land. A high-performance single engine aircraft (military jet trainer) may be able to complete a turnback procedure, but a light single GA aircraft will only have the choice of a small turn (<90*) and gliding to the landing area. In almost every case, if the aircraft was in controlled flight the crash is survivable. Keep cool!

[MattCollins]

I fly single engine Very Low Performance a/c from a very small field quite often (most weeks). I was always taught to fly engine failures in a very similar way, no matter the a/c (as long as it was single engine and had wings)

Basicly, Stick the nose down to get stalling speed + 20%ish, then depending on height....

below 300": Land ahead (within 45degrees of current heading) on the runway/field/road/river(!!)/anything soft after chopping the throttle and completing as many checks as poss. The fuel cock takes priority...

300-500" with wind <10kt: Turn back to land on runway/airfield. FIRM checks can then usually be carried out, so fuel cock off, ignition off, radio call, main switch off. However, FLY THE AIRCRAFT!!! If the wind is >10kt then land ahead as above.

500"+: Nose down, throttle closed as the above two, then complete a mini-circuit. Once downwind, assess height, rate of descent, complete a couple checks if time. If you're not gonna make it round finals (ie final turn to be commenced at 300") then throw it away and land downwind, otherwise, do finals and land.

I've had three engine failures in as many a/c (all mech probs, honest!!) and not broken anything else (me or the a/c) on landing.

Obviously, the captains decision is final. For example, if the wind is really slack, then you could get a long way out before reaching 300", so unable to make it back from a turnback. The best decision would probably (bearing in mind landing area) be to land ahead.

Partial engine failures are slightly different. If you're able to achieve/maintain 400" and stall speed + 20%, complete a minicircuit, completing FCCFI checks once downwind. (Throttle full, Fuel cock on, Choke in, Carb heat cold (unless icing susp), Fuel pump on, Ignition on.) Landing should be fairly simple, although remain alert, and keep asking yourself what you would do if the engine quite altogether.

If you can't maintain 400" and required speed, treat it as a full EFATO, but use whatever power you have to make it to the best landing site.

[antonybradford]

What constitutes a high performance aircraft? One which has a powerful engine? High Va speeds and the like?

If your engine fails when you are in a single engine aircraft, I would have thought that performance is purely based on the gliding capabilities, the drag coefficient and general manoeuvrability.

[antonybradford]

I think what is in fact appearing here is that maybe we shouldn’t just say no to land straight ahead. It is clear that different people will vary in opinion, and let us not forget that it the pilot in command who makes the decision.

Coming from a background of gliding, we were always taught to land ahead if too low to turn, complete a small circuit if too high, and turn into wind for a few seconds, and then make a complete turn. However being highly manageable these kinds of exercise are possible more safe.

Basically I am carrying out an investigation to see if there is a better solution to what is common place in general aviation and indeed commercial. The common answer is do NOT attempt to turn back. I think that there is a good argument to say that no need not always be the case. It will take a few months to carry this study out, but none the less I will keep you posted if anyone is interested in my findings.

Antony Bradford

[pulse1]

ab,
You seemed to have missed the earlier point made by me and Happy Jack that a high performance (power) aircraft will be much closer to the runway at 900' WHEN the engine fails. A high performance (low drag) machine will not need to be so close.
MattCollins,
I am staggered that you were trained to do a 180 and get back to a runway from 300 - 500'. Even in a good glider you wouldn't do that unless you had enough speed to complete the turn without losing height.
Its too late to do the maths accurately but a 180 degree turn in your average spamcan at 70kts is going to take about 20 seconds. At a typical sink rate of 1000 fpm, that's 300' you've lost, just in the turn.

[MattCollins]

True, it isn't the simplest bit of flying ever, but as long as the flying is accurate (ie, speed very close to optimal) and the rate of bank isn't too excessive or too shallow, you can at least turn enough to get back to the airfield. Yes, the landings were heavy, but within g-limits and no extra damage resulted. (FYI, the two full EFATO's landed on grass, while the partial made it back on the run with ease) And yes, doing a turn back just above 300" will result in being very low 'over the hedge', but I know I'd prefer meeting the ground actually on the airfield near medical attention than in a random field with locked gates and a very angry bull!!

However, as I stressed, the captain is always responsible for flying the a/c. If all else fails, just keep the speed up and the nose pointed away from hard stuff! Even using a hedge to 'aid braking performance' or ground looping can save you (and your passenger's) life...

EDIT: Just for info, climbing speed for mycurrent a/c is 55kt, circuit and descent speed 60, and approach (below 300") is 65kt. Optimal sink rate is 62kt, optimal climb is 58kt.

[antonybradford]

I appreciate your views on high performance aircraft, though what I was referring to was high manoeuvrability. Fast aircraft are not necessarily more manageable in terms of there turning and gliding capabilities.

Just to clarify I was never taught to carry out a 180* turn after either a cable break or engine failure. I'm simply testing the idea, and some others. Although aviation is based around experience, I do believe that being so comparably young in it’s' development that aviation could open its gates to new alternatives.

[MattCollins]

No, it's good to think stuff through like that. You may not be taught it, but unofficial stuff can save your life (although it can also screw you legally if it goes wrong)