"Real" Engine outs

[mark sicknote]

A friend of mine had the misfortune to loose the engine on the Cessna 152 he was flying. The instructor took over and made a forced landing. Unfortunately the plane overturned and was consumed by fire. Fortunately they both made it out alive albeit with some injuries.

I am constantly reminding myself to assume I will have an engine failure. Not that it is a possibility.

The one thing my friend mentioned was the difference between having a stopped prop and a prop turning at flight idle. He was surprised at how quickly speed bled off and at how much steeper his glide profile needed to be in order to maintain best glide.

Anyone experienced a similar scenario and like to share the details?

Best,

Sicknote:ok:

[TotalBeginner]

I would cosider it a bonus if the prop stopped turning after an engine failure (except if you want to re-start). I would imagine the drag to be less from a stationary propeller than a windmilling one. Maybe I'm wrong ?

[BroomstickPilot]

Yes, TotalBeginner, forgive me but I fear you are wrong. In fact the drag from a stationary prop is much greater than from a windmilling prop.

To provide a simple explanation, a windmilling prop, by revolving, is giving way to the force of the air passing through its blades. The only resistance being from some aerodynamic drag, friction and engine compression (if there is any left depending on what has bust). Each blade is still to some extent behaving like an aerofoil, thus limiting the amount of drag it produces by converting the energy of passing air into circular motion. A stationary prop, by contrast, is resisting passing air totally. Each blade behaving like a large flat plate held out in the slipstream.

One thing that concerns me about the way PFLs are taught is that all too often students are not warned about the very different handling to be expected of an aircraft power off with the prop stationary. This will require a very much steeper angle of descent in order to maintain flying speed. Add to this the fact that stopped prop is something you cannot practice in the air.

Good luck and keep up the flying.

Broomstick.

[DFC]

Drag from a stationary propeller is less than from a windmilling one. Think of the windmilling prop as being a disk creating drag.

The problem with Glide approaches to landing is that they are done to runways / marked strips.

Pilots are (almost exclusively) trained to use runway aspect and such things to deduce the glide performance in terms of getting the aircraft in and also use the runway to judge the flare, hold-off etc etc.

Training at all levels provides no information or guidance in the differences experienced when doing a glide approach to a big grass field with no marked runway and no familiar ques for judgement. Hence why people have problems with real engine failures into open fields.

Regards,

DFC

[will fly for food 06]

Interesting thoughts. I was under the impression that a windmilling prop produced more drag than a stationary one. I thought that a windmilling prop did produce lift but it is now in the wrong direction. A feathered prop is the best solution but most ppl training aircraft dont have this feature.
The main thing is to fly the aircraft. Remember you have more chance of surviving going into the fence at the end of the field on the ground doing 20 knots than stalling in from 100 feet short of the field.

[Put1992]

And wouldn't a windmilling prop increase your chances of an engine restart?

['India-Mike]

Sicknote

For what it's worth, my view is that it's best to be prepared for the worst, ie instant, no-warning fail at low level. That's what happened to me

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2006/dhc_1_chipmunk_22a__g_aorw.cfm

I always assumed that I'd see falling oil pressure/rising temperature, and have about 5-10 mins to manage the situation before the engine quit. Didn't happen that way:bored:

Oh, stay in practise - even if the PFL exercise might be artificial it's got all the elements to help you when you have the real thing!

[Contacttower]

I've always believed a windmilling prop creates more drag. Certainly the effects of not stopping a prop after an engine failure on a twin can be catastrophic.

A two bladed prop at idle though is still producing a little bit of thrust, so vs. a stopped prop producing no thrust at all will carry the plane a bit further during a PFL.

[will fly for food 06]

When you do a PFL as opposed to an AFL the idling engine will still supply some thrust. This is not the same as a windmilling prop because the engine is no longer supply torque to rotate the prop. It is the force of the relative airflow over the blades that is causing it to rotate.

[micromalc]

Hi All,
The above has been some interesting reading, so I thought I'd add my pint of petrol to the fire.
Been flying for many many years and I always practice "forced landings". So.
I would be bimbling around, see a nice field, and on with the carb heat, throttle back, go thru the necessary motions and line up with said field and think "ok I'll get into there" and then continue with my flight. So far so good.
Then, one day it happened, engine stops. Plane sinks like a brick, no big convenient fields, managed to land ok no harm to plane , crew(me) or passenger
(but I'd aged ten years) Conclusion,nice big fields are never around when you need them, so, practice practice practice and work on your skills of side-slipping.

[mark sicknote]

India Mike,

Thanks for that and I agree totally with last sentiment. Job well done my friend and utmost respect:D.

DFC - I think you are right. My friend was amazed by the difference a broken (and afire-seized) power plant had on the glide capability of the Cessna.

Thank you for your informative posts.

Best,

Sicknote:ok:

[mark sicknote]

PS

My respect Micromalc. Hope I never have to replicate your procedure and if I do...hope I do as well as you did.

Guess there really is some real talent in GA circles!

Best - respect - sicknote:ok:

[micromalc]

Thanks for the kind words, but, if memory serves, it was more luck than judgement. Happy flying.....( I still do PFL's)

[SNS3Guppy]

Yes, TotalBeginner, forgive me but I fear you are wrong. In fact the drag from a stationary prop is much greater than from a windmilling prop.


Absolutely incorrect.

A windmilling propeller isn't just a moving propeller. It's a a moving engine, and the engine is absorbing energy from the slipstream rather than imparting it to the airflow through the propeller disc. The drag from a windmilling propeller can be, and often is, greater than a solid plywood disc out there of the same diameter as the propeller arc.

That said, unless you have substantial excess altitude with which to play, attempting to decrease airspeed enough to allow internal engine drag to stop the propeller isn't in your best interests. You'll likely end up wasting time and altitude that's best spend setting up for a forced landing, communicating distress information, etc. In attempting to slow, you increase your rate of descent, and risk a control loss with a preoccupation of stopping the propeller.

In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years, many of them in radial engine airplanes. I've had ten or so in single engine piston airplanes, and two years ago two engine failures in turbine singles within a three month period.

In the first of the two most recent single engine incidents, (the airplanes were powered with a Garrett TPE-331-11 powerplant), the engine surged between no power and takeoff power rapidly, and the failure occured over a forest fire at about 300' AGL in a heavily wooded area. I was preparing to put the airplane in the trees, but was able to restore power, or partial power, and followed a two land paved road off the mountain to an airport about ten minutes away.

In the second incident, the failure occured at a lower altitude in a canyon (which was also smoked in and on fire), and resulted in a forced landing on the mountainside. It was a different airplane than the first. The propeller did not feather, and continued to rotate until I was on the ground. A turbine bearing seal failure allowed all the engine oil to be lost overboard; the power section of the engine continued to operate normally with normal temperatures, but no torque was available as there was no oil remaining to actuate the propeller.

With respect to a "real" engine failure, you need to be wholly convinced that it's never a matter of if, but when. The time to handle an engine failure isn't when the failure occurs, but long before that. Plan, rehearse, study, prepare for the time it may occur. When you line up on the runway, be prepared for the failure at any point in the takeoff, and know what lies beyond the departure end of the runway. Know your procedures, speeds, and most important of all, know your cockpit blindfolded. Be able to find seat belt releases, fuel shut-offs, door handles, window or canopy releases, and emergency equipment upside down, with your eyes closed, underwater...know how to get out under unusual conditions or circumstances.

Be mentally prepared. Not just with the simple idea that it could happen to you; be spring-loaded to respond because you fully expect a power failure, fire, control problem, etc. A normal, uneventful flight should be a pleasant surprise.

[Mariner9]

A stationary prop creates less drag than a windmilling prop - any qualified Pilot who thinks otherwise needs to revise his forced landing procedures before he/she flies again IMHO:ugh:

A tale I've related on here before:
I spent ages agonising whether I should try stopping the engine aloft to properly simulate the glide. Eventually I decided I was going to do it, so climbed to 8000' over a local farm strip (where I often do PFL's right down to landing), then idled back down to 7000' to cool the engine a little (Rotax so water cooled but I decided to be gentle as possible) before switching off.

First thing to report was that I had to fly really slowly (almost to the stall) to stop the prop windmilling. Once the prop had stopped however, the decent rate at best glide speed improved (ie decreased) significantly, but was still greater than a normal idle glide. Had great fun gliding around for ~ 5 minutes, experimenting with different speeds to find the optimum glide speed, found it to be more or less what the POH said it should be. Also cycled the wobbly prop, was great for adjusting decent rate without retrimming, could be very useful in a real forced landing.

Finally decided to restart by windmilling - had to dive to 120kts before prop started to turn again, but the engine fired instantly.

Very useful experience IMHO, I now know the true glide characteristics of my aircraft should I ever face an engine failure. No doubt a controversial action though, cue loads of posts.....

[micromalc]

I agree with the above....be prepared......BUT...let's not get too paranoid,
after all, flying is meant to be fun, and if one is not careful you can end up,
and I quote from a gliding friend of mine, "you guys just fly around worrying about engine failures, where's the fun in that?"Be prepared, be safe, & enjoy!

[Sleeve Wing]

Just like to add my "well done" to 'India-Mike. "Every one you walk away from"...........

Had EFATO with a Tiger Moth and couldn't get over just how quickly the ground came up in the last 100 feet. Unfortunately I was still turning "to avoid" and get a clear landing run - knocked a wheel off ! Anyway we walked out.

As an instructor, and as a result, the points I would like to make are these.

Concentrate on maintaining your gliding speed, no faster, no slower.
It may actually seem too fast but this allows sufficient airspeed for the flair.The temptation will always be to pull the stick back as the ground comes up ; don't do it too early.

Don't worry about a small float; it enables you to roundout and maybe avoid hitting the near hedge/fence.

The other was a tip from an old mate who is exceptionally well known in the flying world.
His advice was " In the event, always have somewhere to go...........even if you've just passed it !" Oh, and look to BOTH sides !

[IO540]

It is quite hard to stop a mechanically sound engine rotating. I have seen it done in a C152; you have to pitch up at about 45 degrees into a deep stall, obviously with the mixture shut right off, and eventually it stops turning.

Not something most pilots are going to do by accident :)

So, if an engine totally stops in anything resembling normal flight, it is likely to be seized solid and trying to start it is a waste of your time (and a waste of battery capacity). Especially if the stoppage was preceeded by mechanical noises etc.

I am sure the great majority of engine failures where the engine continues to rotate are either a) carb icing or b) lack of fuel. You know what to do about the 1st one, and you should know (despite some dodgy practices being taught in the UK PPL training scene) what to do about the 2nd one :)

There will always be time windows where an engine failure is going to mean a landing into something which is not a nice field. A fair number of airports are in that category, in addition to mountains, forests, etc. All you can do is minimise those windows. But statistics is hugely in your favour here. I am completely un-bothered about flying straight over the Alps covered by cloud at FL180; it takes well under an hour to cross the whole lot, which is well under 1% of my annual time. That's a very good bet. But then I didn't get my engine assembled by some cowboy.

And for over-water, you carry a life raft.

A stationary prop creates less drag than a windmilling one. And a windmilling VP one creates a lot less drag if you pull the pitch full-coarse.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Yes, TotalBeginner, forgive me but I fear you are wrong. In fact the drag from a stationary prop is much greater than from a windmilling prop.
Just to back up many of the other responses to this misunderstanding with an illustration:

It takes a lot of force and energy to turn over a non-running engine. Have you ever tried to push start a car? In fact it takes a starter motor about 60 amps at 12v to turn over a decent sized engine - that's a welding current. If a failed aircraft engine is windmilling, the power to keep turning over that engine is coming directly out of your glide performance. A seized or feathered prop will provide less drag.

If the quote above was correct, when helicopters have engine failures, they would put the rotor brake on! Instead they allow the rotor to autorotate to gain minimum rate of descent. Same deal - think about it!

['India-Mike]

Agree wholeheartedly with sleeve about speed control - being trimmed at whatever speed you want to use seriously reduces workload, leaving you with spare capacity for other things. Mainly not getting maxed-out!

I made notes after my failure 2 years ago, and this thread has made me dig them out again. I noted that I remembered looking at the ASI only twice and both times it said 70kt. After the second time I felt I speed wasn't a problem - but that's only because (I assume) I got the thing properly in trim. didn't look at the ASI again.

Also, I forgot to switch off fuel; mags; master. I forgot to tighten my harness; I forgot to jettison the canopy side panels. Caught up in the moment I suppose but could have had nasty consequences if the sand hadn't been firm. Only 50 sec from failure to being on the beach, so things happened quickly. Live and learn:)

[tartare]

I had an instructor who reached out and actually switched the engine off in a 152 at 3000 feet; albeit over a low flying area, and with plenty of warning.
His reasoning was, he wanted me to feel how scary and quiet it was if it ever happened for real.
Very sobering experience.
The same guy had me do a dead stick grass landing beside the runway.
Really puts the pressure on and makes you realise if it happens for real, you'll go down real fast, and you only have one shot...

[RatherBeFlying]

In Canada, the advice is to pick a touchdown point one third into the field -- halfway if it's a short one.

Clearing the trees and wires on approach is the first priority.

Certainly once the obstacles are definitively cleared, you can steepen the approach to get a longer landing run, but you'll likely be surprised how short the ground run can be in a plowed field;)

[SNS3Guppy]

I had an instructor who reached out and actually switched the engine off in a 152 at 3000 feet; albeit over a low flying area, and with plenty of warning.


From an instructor point of view, I firmly believe in giving realistic training. A student of mine will find a flight that ends without multiple engine failures, no matter what the training environment, to be a shock. A student should never be permitted to have his or her first forced landing off field occur by themself. It should have occured with an instructor on board in the training environment such that the "emergency" has become a familiar event.

And a windmilling VP one creates a lot less drag if you pull the pitch full-coarse.


That depends very much on the engine and propeller system in use. It's certainly not the case for all engine/propeller combinations. Know the system you're using, but don't apply what you know about one system to another. Know your airplane.

[S205-18F]

It is the most amazing feeling when there is a sudden silence!! It is rather surreal and then the realization sets in thank God my instructor was so annoying with constant EFATO drill!!!! There is that point when you dont believe its stopped, then you tap the gauges!!! Then you think OMG I have now to put into practice what I have learned!
Done it twice not looking forward to the third one!!!!

[smith]

I think what people are getting confused with here is a windmilling and an idling prop. In a PFL the prop is idling not windmilling and is producing some, albeit negligible thrust. In an actual engine failure, whether the prop stops or windmills, the drag will be significantly higher than the idling prop in the PFL, hence the glide characteristics will be completely different to what has been practised.

[Crash one]

I've never had one yet & not looking forward to it.
There are three scenarios here, a "flight idle" PFL, a "windmilling" fuel/carb ice stoppage & a stopped prop / siezure. I would think the usually taught idle PFL is the least like the real thing, in the first place you are taught to "warm" the engine every 500ft, very useful just when you need a bit of thrust! 2 you are reasonably sure it will go when you need it when you realise the field isn't big enough, 3 you "know!!" the exercise does not involve an actual landing, 4 you knew it was going to happen.
The windmilling prop must produce the most drag, think gyroplanes, how many helicopter pilots have been in autorotation going up? next is the stopped prop/plank, feathered blades may help but I don't have those.
Assured success seems to be more a case of location, location, location.
So, perhaps I should stay in the circuit & practice glide approaches.
Well done everyone who are still able to tell us about theirs.

[Orographic]

how many helicopter pilots have been in autorotation going up?

um, I might be way off in left field here, but anyone who has ever flown a gyrocopter?

[IFMU]

Some years ago we were hanging around at our glider field early in the morning, and heard a whistling over the threshold. Turned around to look, and here came a C152 with a stopped prop. Landed down field a little bit, started back up, taxied back, and departed. I remember saying to my club-mate "well there is something you don't see every day."

[Dan Winterland]

The glide angle of a stopped engine is steeper than the idling engine. Is anyone really suprised at that fact? The problem with that is in the execution of the procedure for real. The standard PFL pattern doesn't give much lattitude for correction, so when the it's discovered that the angle is steeper in the real case - it's often too late and the pilot ends up in trouble.

I grew up using the military 'Contant Sight Line Angle' (SLA) technique which gives you a lot more lattitude and if your glide angle is steeper, the technique will allow you to identify that fact quickly and correct it with plenty of room to adjust the pattern to compensate. When I trained as a pilot, I already had about 400 hours gliding. The PFL technique I learned is what I had used sucessfully a thousand times or more in gliders. And I have had cause to use the technique twice for real in powered aricraft - both time with complete success.

When I converted my military instructional qualifications into the civilian rating, I was required to teach the PPl technique. I found I couldn't do it! Judging the glide angle was very difficult and I either over or undershot on every attempt. After some scorn from my instructor, I then demonstrated three glide circuits using the constant SLA landing on the numbers each time. I subsequently had to learn the PPl technique, but I will never be convinced that it is better than the SLA technique.

So why isn't the SLA technique tought in the PPL syllabus? This question was being banded around in the 90's when I was an RAF QFI on piston singles. The CAA safety magazine had a discussion for nearly a year regarding this question and some interesting facts emerged. The Statistics showed that military pilots had a forced landing sucess rate of over 90% whereas the civilan sucess rate was less than 50%. This is part due to the mlitary pilots being in better practice, but a lot of it was considered to be due to the SLA technique. There was a move to change the PPL syllabus to the SLA technique, but there is a lot of inertia in the system and it was considered the technique was too complex to learn and would take too many resources. this is slightly ironic as most pilots who have learned it subsequently confess it isn't difficult.

If your club has an ex military QFI, get him to demonstrate it one day.

[SNS3Guppy]

um, I might be way off in left field here, but anyone who has ever flown a gyrocopter?


You betcha. About as much fun as you can have in an aircraft, with your clothes on.

The Statistics showed that military pilots had a forced landing sucess rate of over 90% whereas the civilan sucess rate was less than 50%.


Disregarding the fact that when military pilots experience a problem of a significane enough nature that a civillian pilot would execute a forced landing, the military pilot ejects...

[tmmorris]

You don't eject from a Grob Tutor, you know! I doubt that statistic included fast jets.

In fact, as far as I know, no-one's ever bailed out from a Tutor, either, even though all operations are carried out wearing parachutes. I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong, because I quote that statistic to cadets regularly!

There was an incident about three years ago when one shed a prop blade, followed by the engine cowlings and canopy before the pilot managed to shut it down, but they still landed that one in a field. (Hairline cracks in the props were found on a number of other Tutors leading to an AD.)

Tim

[DFC]

So why isn't the SLA technique tought in the PPL syllabus?


It is in some places.

There is no specified forced landing procedure for the PPL or the CPL. The requirements in simple terms are to maintain control, ensure safety and make it to a suitable landing area.

The great thing about the SLA is that the basic methods involved can be taught and learned on the ground using a suitable open space and teaching aid.

Looks funny with students walking round arms outstretched dipping down as the walk! One even tried to be smart and make engine noises until I pointed out that this was an engine out procedure. :D :D :D

Regards,

DFC

[hugh flung_dung]

Dan said "So why isn't the SLA technique tought in the PPL syllabus?" - AFAIK it is taught by everyone at Old Sarum.

HFD

[Contacttower]

Dan said "So why isn't the SLA technique tought in the PPL syllabus?" - AFAIK it is taught by everyone at Old Sarum.



Indeed it is...

[G_STRING]

I grew up using the military 'Contant Sight Line Angle' (SLA) technique which gives you a lot more lattitude and if your glide angle is steeper, the technique will allow you to identify that fact quickly and correct it with plenty of room to adjust the pattern to compensate

Dan, for the uninitiated (myself), please can you explain what the Constant Sight Line Angle is, and how it is used?

Thanks

[mark sicknote]

Yes thanks for that G-string....As far as I can ascertain its simply the angle between an object and the ground below. Don't know how to convert that angle into a practical engine off landing.

Best,

Sicknote:ok:

[BackPacker]

Isn't this essentially the same technique the military uses for flying the circuit? Instead of flying a square circuit with a well-defined base leg, they fly a continuous curve, starting on downwind abeam the numbers, keeping the angle to the touchdown point (the numbers) constant, and use the wideness of the turn as the adjuster?

[Dan Winterland]

The success of a forced landing is based on the sucessful landing of an intact aircraft. Leaving the aircraft as a pile of wreckage in a smoking hole while you descend by parachute could hardly be classed as successful. Besides, the statistics were for light piston singles which don't tend to have ejector seats.

The SLA technique involves you imagining an angle between you and the touchdown point. If that angle is increasing, you are going to land long. Conversely, if that angle in decreasing you will undershoot. This requires you to fly an almost complete curving approach to the touchdown point. it may sound like what you do already, largely because you have worked it out for yourself. But in my experience, it is tought very infrequently at club level. From my experience of teaching it, students picked it up very quickly - and once mastered they made sucessful glide approaches nearly every time. The primary skill is judging the changing SLA. It's not as difficult as it first may seem.

The military oval circuit isn't really flown using the SLA because the aim is to roll out at 300' or so. However, the glide circuit is taught using the SLA and the final roll out can be - and often is quite low.

I have attached the page from the Chipmunk Student Study Guide which shows the SLA PFL pattern. be aware that you don't have to reach Hi Key at the specified heights. Once you are experienced in the technique, you can join the pattern at any point.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb73/dbchippy/1705.jpg

[G_STRING]

Dan

Thanks for that. I always endeavour to practice PFLs, but I've never seen this technique explained, although I'd heard of it.

From what I've observed, there are a lot of military pilots on this board - conversely, 'their' way of doing things is often documented here. It seems to me that the millitary have a much better 'hands on' approach/style to various aspects of flying, many which seem to be better than the civilian way of doing things.

It would be interesting if a thread could be started that highlighted these differences, (with explanations, of course), perhaps giving both sides the chance to learn from one another?

[RatherBeFlying]

Looking at the diagram, I get the suspicion that the curving approach is keeping the aim point off the wingtip until turning final.

Dumb Question -- Is the constant angle in the horizontal or vertical plane? I know in gliders we like to maintain a vertical angle to the aim point.

Don't think I'd make friends practising this approach at an active airfield in North America.

[Yankee Whisky]

The SLA technique involves you imagining an angle between you and the touchdown point. If that angle is increasing, you are going to land long. Conversely, if that angle in decreasing you will undershoot. This requires you to fly an almost complete curving approach to the touchdown point. it may sound like what you do already, largely because you have worked it out for yourself. But in my experience, it is tought very infrequently at club level. From my experience of teaching it, students picked it up very quickly - and once mastered they made sucessful glide approaches nearly every time. The primary skill is judging the changing SLA. It's not as difficult as it first may seem.


I am a glider pilot with over 3000 "deadstick" landings and I have used the shortfield landing technique nearly 100% of the time. The reason being that the experience gained this way will give invaluable help when you're in a pinch on a cross country field selection.
I also did over 6000 landings in Birddogs (L-19's) and the landing technique I use for a deadstick is to do exactly as the military. You never loose sight of the intended touch-down point and use all your facilities to bleed off height whilst not allowing yourself to get below the glide slope, as could happen in a standard circuit. I have been lucky to not have had a real engine failure, but I prefer to have either a windmilling or a stopped propeller because with either situation I adjust my technique in judging the landing approach. I think a windmilling propeller functions as an airbrake (braking v.s. pulling prop) and I will leave the aerodynamicists to figure out which produces more or less drag when compared with a stopped prop. Of course the 50 degr flaps on the Birddog help !
An important thing to remember is that airspeed must be bled-off at the time the wheels touch the ground with the stick in your stomach. I know of a few pilots who did not do this and nosed over causing substantial damage to aircraft and ego! Excess speed can be a big liability in a small and muddy field.
So far (touch wood) I have been successful using this technique.

Yankee Whiskey

[SNS3Guppy]

Leaving the aircraft as a pile of wreckage in a smoking hole while you descend by parachute could hardly be classed as successful.


Quite so. The military mantra: when in doubt, punch out. In most military aircraft, a successful forced landing off-field is not an option. In virtually all light piston civillian singles, it's an absolute necessity.

Besides, the statistics were for light piston singles which don't tend to have ejector seats.


Again, true. However, the military flies very few light piston singles, and most military pilots have never flown a piston airplane. Even training single engine aircraft include ejection or bailout capability (T-6 II, for example). The use of statistics is nearly always misleading, and a comparison between civillian forced landings in light singles, and those in military aircraft is hardly a good one. Certainly it doesn't speak to training or skill. By sheer numbers, civillian forced landings far outweigh military ones. Even with a much lower percentage number, the number of successful forced landings exceeds those of military operations by a substantial number.

If the military during a given period made two forced landings, one of which was successful, one of which wasn't, one could hold that the military shows a 50% success rate. If during the same period civillian forced landings total one hundred and thirty are successful, one might suggest that with only a 30% success rate, this clearly shows that the military exhibits better training and a much higher success rate. Get the military to do 100 forced landings during the same period and see if the numbers still hold true. You'll find it's not the case, and instead you'll be recording record numbers of ejections or bailouts.

When was the last time the military trained a student to actually land on a country road or in a field?

The success of a forced landing is based on the sucessful landing of an intact aircraft.


That might represent one standard, but hardly a good one. A forced landing in a heavily wooded area is often best conducted by intentionally putting the fuselage between tree trunks in order to allow the wings to absorb the impact...destroying the aircraft, but reducing impact forces on the occupants. The aircraft is far from intact, but the results are survivable...by the standard you've suggested, this doesn't represent a successful forced landing. Tell that to the survivors.

In the forced landing I conducted two years ago, described previously, the aircraft was relatively unscathed. The tailwheel assembly collapsed during the rollout, but otherwise it was in good shape. We were able to move it to a farm road eight days later and fly it out after repairs were conducted. I continued using it after it underwent a month of inspections. However, as I exited the burning canyon and made my turn to put it on the hillside, the intactness of the aircraft was the least of my worries. I expected to end up inverted. I had nearly full fuel tanks and expected at least a groundloop if not ending up inverted, and thus expected a wing tank to be ruptured, and a fire. My sole concern was getting stopped and getting clear. Had I ended up inverted and on fire, and had I been clear, I would certainly have considered that a successful forced landing. Intact aircraft, or otherwise.

[bookworm]

The glide angle of a stopped engine is steeper than the idling engine. Is anyone really suprised at that fact?

It's not quite the no-brainer you imply.

A feathered prop most definitely has less drag than an idling engine, otherwise we wouldn't set "zero thrust" at a power above idle when simulating engine failure on a twin. If you imagine starting at a stopped, feathered prop and moving it gradually to finer pitch, you may reach an angle at which the stopped prop has the same drag as the one attached to an idling engine. Whether you reach this point before or after the pitch reaches the fixed-pitch of the real prop is debatable.

Hartman (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report.php?NID=1140) has a useful summary table for a prop he tested in 1934. With the combination that he chose, the prop attached to an engine throttled to idle was less draggy than the stopped prop at 25, 50 and 75 mph, but was more draggy at 100 mph, presumably because at that speed the prop was effectively driving the engine, while the stopped prop was just sitting there.

[hugh flung_dung]

A very minor clarification on DanW's reply for those who may be self-teaching this technique: the IAP is initially selected at 1/3 or so into the intended landing area.
HTH

HFD

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Guppy,
the military flies very few light piston singles, and most military pilots have never flown a piston airplane.

Every RAF pilot whether fast jet, multi-engine or rotary wing begins his training on light, single engine piston aerolanes. The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own. Probably 10% of the RAF's fleet consists of aircraft in this class.

I think you may be trying to skew the facts to prove a 'civvy is best' point. The fact is that the constant sightline angle technique taught by the RAF is a very effective technique for judging engine off landings in any class of aircraft, and more likely to end with a good result than the technique taught during my PPL. Yes, most military have better currency than most civvy pilots but I think the stats do make a valid point. There have been a sufficient number of successful forced landings by military aircraft over the years for the results to be statistically significant and I think you'll find that when discussing successful forced landings we are not going to be including ejections and bail outs.

When was the last time the military trained a student to actually land on a country road or in a field?

Every RAF student trains for off airfield forced landings ad nauseam during Elementary Flying Training. If you fly helicopters you never stop practising engine off landings, and the constant sightline angle technique works as well for a 24 ton Chinook in autorotation as it does for a C152.

[CJ Driver]

I have also done one for real, and it went well.

Referring back to the original anecdote, from the viewpoint of the non-flying pilot, a real forced landing is supposed to look unusually steep, and not just from a drag/speed point of view. In a practice forced landing there's a tendency to try to stretch the glide, because after all, if it doesn't work we can always add power and try again! In the real thing, that's not an option, and a recurring point in all the tips is "stay higher on the glideslope than you would normally", along with "aim half way down the field, not at the threshold". That's because with no engine in a typical draggy light aircraft you can always stuff the nose down for a quick plummet to use up spare energy, but you can't pull back to stretch the glide. In fact when it all goes quiet it may be worth reminding yourself to check the field directly underneath you, rather than gazing into the distance for a better option.

As someone once said, it is better to hit the fence at the far end slowly, than it is to hit the fence at the near end quickly.

In my own case (and to my pleasant surprise) the aircraft stopped about 15 feet away from the wall at the far end of the field!

[Mark1234]

Caveat Emptor: Never done one for real in a powered a/c.

That said, I'm a glider jockey as well as a ppl, and have made a few outlandings; gliding I fly something like the SLA, and probably would continue to do so outside of a controlled airfield / in a real emergency with a powered a/c. And yes, it's the vertical angle you're interested in.

The only thing I really have to add to this topic is neatly illustrated by Dan's chipmunk page:

Q. All other things being equal, in which direction is the field the longest?

A. From corner to corner....


Glider instruction also tells me if the far hedge/wall/whatever is approaching in a hurry, initiate a groundloop - it's generally a far better way of dispersing energy.. but you're very exposed in the front of a glider. It's also advised that over 'unlandable' terrain, you sideslip in onto a wingtip. Not keen on that.

However in any emergency situation, the airframe is dispensable... particularly if doing so is helpful to the survival of soul(s) contained within.

[Mark 1]

I've had three total power losses while in the driving seat and another in the passenger seat.

Of those two resulted in restarts (one fuel pump failure recovered by switching on the electric boost pump, the other was an empty tank which I switched over from the passenger seat at 300' agl).

The two that resulted in forced landings both had windmilling props that stopped turning only as speed was reduced on final approach.

The military style high key, low key constant aspect technique is the one I chose with the best chance of success.

You'll never get an ideal choice of field in the right location especially at typical VFR cruising altitudes in the UK, you will probably forget some of the checks and drills, it will probably be 5 to 10 seconds for you to acknowlege the situation before you do anything atall, the rate of descent will be a bit more than you're expecting, but good training will give you a pretty good chance of a successful outcome.

[Contacttower]

The military style high key, low key constant aspect technique is the one I chose with the best chance of success.



It worked for me as well the one time I went parachuting. It was the first time I'd jumped, but since I did a short ground course first I jumped solo. The centre of the drop zone was marked by a small gravel patch...and using my knowledge of glide approaches I hit it right in the middle...SLA works everytime. :ok:

[RMarvin86]

What do you think about this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5MapqXQdU8

These are some italian pilots shutting down the engine for real just for the fun of making the video. As you can see they shut down the engine with an high AoA near the stall in order to stop the propeller and then pitching it down restarting the engine...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

RM86

[mothflyer]

Flew the little Rollason Turbulent's (VW engine) for many years and loved and learned to respected them.

Learnt valuable lesson about engine handling quite early on when, through a moments brain fart forgot to keep the engine warm in the descent... lost the engine in the circuit after putting the power back on to find... ah, oops it stopped. := Luckily I got it on the runway after cutting everyone up on final (not popular) After landing, got out, pulled it off the runway and sat in the grass contemplating the error of my ways in a fair bit of shock.

Always taught to fly the circuit so that if the engine did quit, I'd have a fighting chance... well at least I did that bit right.

Since then I've been very mindfull of managing the engine in the right way and thankfully the prop's kept turning under its own power! :ok:

[SNS3Guppy]

The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own.


Aaah...no.

I think you may be trying to skew the facts to prove a 'civvy is best' point.


I said no such thing. Not remotely. I couldn't care who is "best."

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Quote:::

In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years, many of them in radial engine airplanes. I've had ten or so in single engine piston airplanes, and two years ago two engine failures in turbine singles within a three month period.

Interesting thread here.

I got to thinking about how many engine failures I've had and couldn't even come close to remembering that many.

What kind of maintenance did the airplanes have that you were flying SNS3Guppy?

On the other hand you must have been flying a lot more hours or years than most of us have.

[Dan Winterland]

Quote:
The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own.

Aaah...no.

I'm pretty certain the US forces use the SLA technique for their Texan 2s forced landing pattern. And the technique goes for any single engine aircraft - not just pistons. Even if you do have an ejector seat. Landing without an engine would usually be considered. I remember talking about forced landings with a USAF F16 pilot and he was talking about using a pattern similar to the one I was familiar with in the RAF. He seemed to be talking about a 'Hi Key' position.

[Piper.Classique]

Putting my glider pilot's hat on here......
Motorgliders with feathering props are pretty common. (Sf 25, etc....)
We have prop brakes, as stopping the prop windmilling takes a fair time at low speed (just above the stall and wait!) Once stopped, we feather the prop and set it horizontal. That's so we don't bang it on the ground if we get the landing wrong, and saves it sticking up spoiling the view. The difference between windmilling and stopped is nearly as great as between stopped and feathered. Get a ride in one to try it out if you can. It isn't the same as a light aircraft, even the grotty twoseaters will glide at about 25 to one, and we have airbrakes or spoilers to make the landing easy. I used to teach in a motor falke, and we normally landed engine stopped. I am now learning to instruct in three axis microlights, and we routinely land engine stopped on the airfield (600m grass). Frankly, it isn't very hard once you get over the idea that you can't go around, and it takes about the same distance as engine turning. It is a steeper approach, so if you feel like trying it choose a nice long field and don't try to land right at the beginning first time. Just learn to sideslip, and flaps down only when absolutely sure of getting in :) or not at all, sideslips are more controlable.

[Local Variation]

Had a real one during my training at 900ft QFE on the climb out with Instructor say beside.

PFLs were something that I struggled with, hence the Instructor regularly sprang mock engine failures on me with a number of scenarios.

As a result, both our responses were immediate, well drilled, and we got back in without too much stress. Good teamwork lead to us being pretty chilled about it on finals albeit with a dead engine. Was straight back in the seat the following week.

So, no surprise for me with our successful outcome. And as a PPL today, I still practice them.

My advise would be to know your local area around your home airfield well as you will have far less time to respond than being at 3000ft plus in the cruise over the country side. And when I say well, look at the local features such as power lines that might interfere. I spoke to someone who also had an inflight failure and asked them why they diverted when it seemed apparent that they could return. Low power lines in the vacinity of the approach was the response.:D

[RMarvin86]

I read almost every post and some of you experienced a real engine failure and you all explained how it happened and what the reaction/result was.

To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're engine failed! or the reason it may happen. If there is no pilot's fault in managing the fuel qty, selector, icing and the airplane was always handled by a serious maintenance center, what may go wrong?
For those who lived this event do they know what happened at the engine?

[er340790]

Friend walked away from a (self-induced) forced landing in a PA-28 in the Netherlands. Shortly after getting his PPL he was flying with his fiancee when he decided to demonstrate a simulated engine failure. At about 150' above his selected landing area he re-applied power and........... nothing. (Possible rich mixture cut-out per the investigators.)

Anyway, to cut a long story short, he missed his intended field entirely AND the one beyond it and finally got it down into a third field, crashing through a fence / ditch, sustaining substantial damage to undercarriage (one side collapsed) wing and engine (nose wheel collapsed). Fortunately they both walked away from it.

The moral here?

DON'T SELECT THE BEST EMERGENCY LANDING AREA. SELECT THE BIGGEST..........

She still married him!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Failures resulting in engine shut downs that I can recall .....I probably will think of more later.

P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure

P&W R1830....PBY......Cylinder failure..separation from engine.

P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure.

R1830....PBY.....Catastrophic failure of the supercharger.

PT6-20..Twin Otter......Fuel controller.

PT6-20...Twin Otter.....Fuel Controller.

Those are all I can recall right now that resulted in an engine shut down and landing at nearest airport......one of which was 275 NM away in the high Arctic.

By the way the failures on the P&W1830's were over a period of 10,000 hours flying time on that type of engine.

It is interesting to note I have never had a failure in a single engine airplane that resulted in a forced landing with no power.

Probably because I'm just lucky. :ok:

[SNS3Guppy]

Probably because I'm just lucky.


Probably.

To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're engine failed!


In the case of the last one I cited, the rear turbine bearing failed, allowing loss of the engine oil. When the engine oil was gone, the gas generator (engine core) continued to run without any problem, and normal power control responses. There was no oil available to actuate the propeller, and therefore no torque available.

I'm pretty certain the US forces use the SLA technique for their Texan 2s forced landing pattern.


The T6II's aren't piston airplanes, and unlike most singles, it has removable seats...as you know.

The High key position is a point in a simulated flameout pattern...not really a forced landing pattern. It's a typical descent, and it's best described not by maintaining a constant angle, but by staying close enough to during the steep descent and approach to make the runway. You can call it whatever you like, SLA, SFO, overhead approach, whatever...it's a descent in the pattern to a chosen landing point by remaining close enough to never get low. You can use a constant angle, you can imagine little window panes to fly through, or whatever technique floats your boat. The result is the same; don't crash.

These patterns aren't taught to execute forced landings, particularly ones off field.

What kind of maintenance did the airplanes have that you were flying SNS3Guppy?


Just fine. With some 30 different companies and agencies. R2600's, R3350's, R4360's, PT6A's, T56's, TPE331's, TFE-731's, and other equipment. In small powerplants, A-65's, 0-200's, U470's, IO520's, etc.

On the other hand you must have been flying a lot more hours or years than most of us have.


That's really irrelevant now, isn't it?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

That's really irrelevant now, isn't it?

Only if you are lucky like me SNS3Guppy. :ok:

It's you unlucky types who have all those engine failures who I feel sympathy for. :sad:

One thing I am fairly certain of SN3Guppy from reading your posts I may not be a great pilot and sure as hell don't know all I should about everything in aviation, but I'm betting that if we compared our flying experience and time in the air I'm more lucky than you. :ok:

[Sleeve Wing]

RMarvin86.

Quote :> To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're (sic) engine failed! or the reason it may happen. <

The EFATO was not a TOTAL engine failure. Just sufficient power reduction (not even enough to maintain S & L) to leave no choice but to forced land , and quick.

Hot Gypsy Major/100LL fuel - caused exhaust valves on two cylinders to gum up. Resulted in couple of maintenance suggestions, one of which was to ream out the valve guides a few 'thou' more when zeroing engines after a rebuild.

Had the problem a couple of times before but not so drastic. Gypsys were designed for Low Octane fuels (non-leaded 73 Oct) not Low Lead. Lead reacts with aluminium-bronze and aluminium cylinder heads. Also hotter engine temps. caused lube oil to lacquer on the valve stems/guides, I believe.

Had another shutdown a long time ago due loss of oil pressure, via a mis-fitted NRV in the prop.control unit of a turboprop........ but that's another story !
:ok:

[SNS3Guppy]

The EFATO was not a TOTAL engine failure. Just sufficient power reduction (not even enough to maintain S & L) to leave no choice but to forced land , and quick.


The majority of engine failures aren't complete engine failures or catastophic power loss. Partial power loss is indeed an engine failure, regardless of whether it requires a forced landing, or not.

A rough running engine...you just had an engine failure, whether you realize it, or not.

[Local Variation]

Basically the same for me.

Engine didn't pack up all together, but available power was not enough to sustain straight and level flight and being low level, their was little to debate.

The engine was removed and sent away for overhall as it only had around 50 hours to go anyway. We suspected some sort of carburettor contamination and I had been using a grass runway.

Recalling it now, I remember that as part of our cause for failure checks, the rpm went up immediately following the application of carb heat. Available power at that time was around 900rpm.

Once on the ground and post shutdown, the engine failed to start.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

A rough running engine...you just had an engine failure, whether you realize it, or not.

-------------------------------------------------------

So using that meaning of the words " engine failure " anytime you get a rough running engine caused by a fouled spark plug you have experienced an engine failure?

I'm afraid I do not subscribe to that simplistic an evaluation of what an engine failure is.

But hey Tiger , whatever turns your personal crank and makes you feel like you are living the life ...go for it. :rolleyes:

[SNS3Guppy]

You know chucky, you're somewhat of a pompus ass, aren't you?

The majority of engine failures are partial power failures. No, a fouled plug doesn't necessarily constitute an engine failure...but you are probably bright enough to know that one doesn't always know if it's a fouled plug. You're going to advertise to the new private pilot on a private pilot's forum that one should make such a stupid assumption?

I've had one or two plugs out of 28 on an engine cause enough vibration that it needed to be shut down, and many other times when a simple mag change was enough. I've also had engines vibrating hard that felt very much like a fouled plug, but involved lifting heads, fuel flow fluctuation (and subsequent failure) in a 206, vibration due to propeller malfunctions, and other problems which one could be forgiven for believing were simply a fouled plug.

You're going to sit there and waffle on about your blessed experiences and suggest that each private pilot out there should dumbly make the assumption that vibration or other symptoms of a sick engine are merely a fouled plug?

I experienced a manifold pressure loss in an R2600, years ago; the engine ran like a top, but nothing more than barometric pressure. The clutch failed, and though we had no other indications, the engine was full of metal. Certainly mechanical problems warrant getting back on the ground soon enough. Certainly an engine doesn't have to produce no power to be a failed engine. If it's failing to function properly, it's failed. A partial failure is as good as a total one.

The TPE-331 I learned, can experience an oil loss and run for a half hour. In your little heaven, perhaps an engine flying around without oil isn't a failure. In my world, it resulted in a forced landing on a hillside during a forest fire. Perhaps you haven't had the benifit of that experience.

[fernytickles]

This is a really interesting thread that is a useful read to all & sundry.

And it will continue to be if Chuck & Guppy don't drag it into a personal "who's got a better engine failure story" contest. Obviously you've both had fascinating flying careers, with a lot of useful experiences that you can share and hopefully the rest of us can learn from. But not if the two of you resort to squabbling online. That acheives nothing.

As for me, the only engine failure I've had so far in 17 years resulted in the dreaded 3-engined approach in the 146 :eek: I have a piece (very small) of the engine in my logbook. The cause was a cracked fan blade coming loose and destroying the rest of the engine.

I've been incredibly lucky; long may it stay that way.

Great topic.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Good point fernytickles, the private pilot forum is not the place for squabbling about who has done what and whos sand box is bigger.

So I shall apoligize to SNS3Guppy for being confrontational and shall refrain from getting into personal opinions regarding the difference between " Real " engine failures and other types of engine problems....

.....for sure it is possible to give the wrong message to new pilots and I don't want to do that.

And the time has long passed since I have a desire to measure dick size with other pilots anyhow. :E

[funfly]

As a PPL with quite a few hours but never an engine failure, it puzzles me why aircraft engines are prone to failing after all the controls and servicing when car engines with all their gadgets never seem to stop of their own accord these days. When did you last have the engine on your car stop dead - I havn't and I do about 30,000 miles a year?
Some posters on here seem to have had dozens of engine outs
So someone please explain why aircraft engines have higher failure rates than car engines.

[bookworm]

So someone please explain why aircraft engines have higher failure rates than car engines.

Bluntly, because aviation safety management has shot itself in the foot.

It's very expensive to change anything in aviation, particularly when it comes to the critical bits of an aircraft. And anything that might perform worse than the status quo is rejected. As a result, aviation is stuck with the status quo -- and for engines that means the ones that were designed in the 1950s -- which are probably considerably less safe than a modern alternative. But no one can afford to prove it.

[Local Variation]

Hazarding a guess and like yourself, spending alot of time behind the wheel.

The % actual RPM requested or used against % available RPM is alot higher in a light aircraft compared to my 320D.

I've never driven my car at full tilt with the RPM on max on the M40 :ok: , yet I do this everytime I launch myself down 27 at EGNX !!

Also, car engines today have alot more technology in them regarding reliability and management, or so they tell us. BMW actually told me last month that my current car has an adaptive engine management system that logs and takes into consideration my driving style (rpm, gear change and the like) and uses this information to produce the most efficient use of the engine / gearbox etc etc. :bored:

[bjornhall]

As a PPL with quite a few hours but never an engine failure, it puzzles me why aircraft engines are prone to failing after all the controls and servicing when car engines with all their gadgets never seem to stop of their own accord these days. When did you last have the engine on your car stop dead - I havn't and I do about 30,000 miles a year?
Some posters on here seem to have had dozens of engine outs
So someone please explain why aircraft engines have higher failure rates than car engines.
Have to recall that SNS3Guppy has had his engine failures to nothing less complex than an IO540 if I recall his last couple posts correctly... If someone put an R2600 in a C172 I wouldn't want to fly it. How often have you heard of an O320, O360 or IO360 packing up when it wasn't due to fuel starvation or carburettor ice? Happens, but it's rare as hell...

One would need to add some real statistics to this thread in order to discuss reliability of traditional light GA engines, Rotax lawn mowers, Thielert gizmos, and modern car engines... Such as the number of forum posts spawned by a failure in each category, and hence the perceived reliability... :E

I think the ones who really wouldn't want you to see reliability statistics are the car engine manufacturers...

[SNS3Guppy]

Have to recall that SNS3Guppy has had his engine failures to nothing less complex than an IO540 if I recall his last couple posts correctly... If someone put an R2600 in a C172 I wouldn't want to fly it. How often have you heard of an O320, O360 or IO360 packing up when it wasn't due to fuel starvation or carburettor ice? Happens, but it's rare as hell...


I believe I also identified small 65 hp powerplants such as the A65 or C65 (J-3 Cub), and the 0-200 (Cessna 150). To be included as well are the 0-320, and O-470/U-470 (Cessna 182, Cessna 310). Point is, it happens, and when it does, how well anyone else has prepared for it is completely irrelevant to you. How well you're prepared for it is all that's important.

Preparation is as much mental and emotional as it is training to put the airplane in the dirt or in the trees or water. Having thought through it an mentally briefed and prepared for the situation is important, but even more so is the ability to not live in the past. The sensation of "this can't be happening to me" is a natural one. However, the ability to let go of what used to be, and live with what is, becomes one of the single most important traits you can posses when things get quiet, or rough.

I've done a lot of work on the side to support my flying habits, including various duties that required the use of a firearm. That in turn required regular qualification with the firearm. One job involved protecting large sums of money. One of the range qualifications involved holding a money bag weighted down to resemble coins and cash. It was held in the shooting hand, and on a signal, one had to drop the bag, draw the duty sidearm, and engage two targets with two shots to the torso and one to the head, each. The number of shooters who attempted to transfer the money bag to their other hand, or who attempted to draw with the bag still in their hand, or who did nothing because they couldn't mentally let go of that bag, was very surprising. Especially under pressure. Seems so simple...just letting go. It's not simple.

Letting go of what was, whatever that may be, is crucial to survival. Don't be jaded into thinking that because an engine is "simple" then it's foolproof, or less failure prone. It isn't. It may be the carburetor; I've seen floats stick, jets plug, carb ice that builds extremely rapidly and engines that can't be restarted as a result, cylinder heads that lift, valves that fail, propellers that break, magnetos that disintegrate...it happens, and can happen to you. A finely tuned and well running engine is wonderful, but you fly the wing, not the engine. Whether the engine is there or not doesn't determine your ability to fly the airplane...just the trajectory you'll eventually take and the range ou have available to you. The airplane is still the same airplane it always was, still responds to your control inputs, and is still under your control when you lose power. You may lose some of it, you may lose all of it. Whatever you've lost (even if the throttle is stuck wide open, or the mixture control has frozen...I've seen those too) or are stuck with...fly it.

The truth is that the IO-540 isn't really much more complicated than the 0-200 or 0-320. It's a slightly bigger air cooled engine with a few more parts...but basically the same. Any engine can fail. Unlike a car, however, you don't simply pull over to the side of the road.

As a PPL with quite a few hours but never an engine failure, it puzzles me why aircraft engines are prone to failing after all the controls and servicing when car engines with all their gadgets never seem to stop of their own accord these days. When did you last have the engine on your car stop dead - I haven't and I do about 30,000 miles a year?


I've had a few cars quit over the years. Mostly older cars, which I tend to drive. I've been through several vans, each over 200,000 miles, and each have had engine failures, and transmission failures during that time. I have a suzuki samurai that's between engines...just going in for it's fourth engine. It will probably be going long after I'm gone. But engines aren't infallible. I drive about 85,000 miles a year or so in my personal auto.

Many of my mile are highway miles. Long stretches of ten hours or more, regularly, when I'm home. The engine lives a fairly easy life; constant RPM, relatively low demand, and it's climate controlled; a cooling system which keeps the metal in that engine under fairly constant conditions. The engine and transmission are fixed in the vehicle with essentially only one type of load.

Compare that to an aircraft engine which is exposed to the environment, is cooled by changing airflow, is largely magnesium and aluminum, rather than steel, and in many cases is a direct drive crankshaft attached to a large spinning disc which is subject to gyroscopic forces, air loads, and a varietyof moments. The engine may fly through a rainstorm with changing cooling characteristics, or be taking off on a hot dry desert day. The engine may sit on the front of an airplane that merely takes off, keeps a fairly constant power, and lands...or it may be on the front of an airplane that maneuvers hard and puts a lot of stress on the engine, propeller, and airframe. Some engines live very hard lives, some don't.

An engine failure in a car doesn't have nearly the psychological significance as one in an aircraft. It's not nearly as memorable, either. The engine in your airplane has some significant differences from the one in your car...the biggest similiarity being that they both have pistons. Bear in mind that it's not just piston engines that fail, though.

Rather than getting too wrapped around the axle about car engines, perhaps it's best to think in terms of the potential to lose any aircraft system. It could be landing gear, it could be hydraulic, it could be a flight control, a flight instrument, fuel, an electrical component or system. An engine failure may not be nearly as significant as a failure of a different kind...your assignment as pilot in command is to ensure that the flight is handled safely regardless of what quits, malfunctions, goes awry, or doesn't quite work as advertised. It happens.

In the past month or so I had a hydraulic pump case split...the pump pressurizing our brakes. I had a flap assembly fail and nearly leave the airplane. I had a smaller turbine engine used to provide electrical power and system air, fail (auxilliary power unit). A part of the electrical system on one engine, a Constant Speed Drive unit, failed. Various other conditions occured, each in different aircraft, each at different times, each handled by a particular checklist. Each of these conditions presented certain limitations we had to live with, but none of them were the end of the world. Aircraft are mechanical by nature, and mechanical things break, wear out, or operate in a manner sometimes for which they weren't designed. These things happen.

In light airplanes, I've had flaps fail. A wing crack. instruments and electrical quit. The year before last, an inflight fire. Again, it happens. The common component, which has absolutely nothing to do with measuring one's anatomy (but everything to do with getting on the ground safely) is how you address each situation. Each one is unique. Each one has a procedure, each one is controllable, each one can be handled...by you. Knowing your airplane, training as regularly as you can, reading, playing out scenarios in your mind, looking for traffic, looking for landing sites, avoiding putting yourself in untennable positions such as extended flight over water or flight in the clouds in single engine airplanes, etc...all go toward providing a successful outcome for you.

Bottom line is, it's all on your shoulders. Car or airplane.

[Piper.Classique]

let me see now.....:hmm:
An O-320 with low oil pressure, high temp, reduced power output; landed it before it quit
an O-360 with a mag drive failure yes I know you can select the non failed mag but on take-off that is a little tricky
an O-320 but could have been anything, the throttle cable stuck solid
an O-200 with two plugs out on the same pot
another one on an O-360
Cracked cylinders on glider tugs, various
a volkswagen in a falke with a both mags dying progressively, and simultaneously
don't ask about cars......I drive old cheap ones
I actually managed to nurse them all onto airfields except for the cars.
They don't have to be complicated to fail

[Big Pistons Forever]

In 5500 hrs I have had the following engine failures

DC 6 P & W R2800 3 Times (supercharger clutch, swollowed valve, broken pushrod)

S2F CW R1820 2 times (separated cylinder head , prop roll back )

PA31 Lyc LTIO 540 (seized shut waste gate = 18 in max MP)

PA39 Lyc IO 320 (fuel selector failed when switching tanks = no fuel to engine)

C150 Cont 0200 (oil pump drive failed = no oil press)

The moral of the story

1) If you fly big radials the more of them on your airplane the better. :)

2) Full/partial failures in light aircraft are most likely due to an accessory failure, not the engine itself

3) Despite previous posts all my light aircraft failures gave some warning

- In the case of the PA31 the previous pilot put 6 litres of oil in the engine in 10 hrs but did not think to tell anyone :*:confused:

- In the case of the PA39 the fuel selector did not feel right when I checked it on the pretake off checks, but I ignored it...shame on me :(

- In the case of the C-150 I always note where all the engine guages normally line up in any aircraft I fly. Shortly after take off I noticed that the oil pressure needle was 2 needle widths lower than normal. I immediately turned back to the airport and was on short final when all oil pressure was lost.... rather than over water if I had continued:ooh:


One other point. The flying club I used to work for had a annual proficency check ride requirement. I always gave the pilots a no notice PFL. Over almost 5 years, I never had a PPL conduct a acceptable PFL and over half would IMO have survived only with great good fortune. Practice your PFL's:ok:

[Contacttower]

Just going back to PFLs themselves....

Sometimes if I'm not very close to the best field, I'll do a straight in approach...but a doing a circuit is always recommended.

Which do people think is more important...going for the best field or picking a worse one that is much closer so you can do a circuit around it?

[SNS3Guppy]

Despite previous posts all my light aircraft failures gave some warning


This is a good point. Aircraft and engines usually talk to you before they give up the ghost. Not only are most engine failures partial power failures, most of them are detectable early on in the process. Many complete failures are fuel exhaustion or fuel starvation (there's a difference) faults...most of the time entirely preventable. Fouled plugs that cause power loss are often the result of improperly adjusted mixtures, improperly maintained magnetos, or even spark plugs. Failure to adjust the idle mixture as a maintenance function leads to overly rich operation on the ground, and sometimes failures after takeoff.

I was assigned a Cherokee 180 to inspect, and found some binding in the flight controls. The group of owners flying it had merely accepted to problem without comment. When I inspected behind the instrument panel I found that the flgiht controls were binding on a wiring bundle and some of the instrument hoses; I was able with little effort to duplicate a condition that would have prevented use of the flight controls in flight. Something which gave plenty of warning, but would have proven fatal at some future date...the owners felt it, recognized the resistance, but elected to do nothing.

How many pilots, low on fuel, press on by overflying airports that have a nice long, hard, available runway with plenty of fuel...in favor of going just a little bit farther? More than a few. I checked out two pilots in a Cessna 210 with long range fuel tanks, and cautioned them both that filling the tanks to the bottom of the filler neck made the tanks look full, but left them one hour of fuel short on each side. Both pilots failed to heed that counsel and each ran out of fuel at a later date in a 210 with long range tanks...and made an off field landing.

During a spring training fire school put on by the government several years ago, I was returning from a field exercise in a PZL Dromader (single engine, low wing, tailwheel) equipped with a PT6A-45R engine. I was transiting a very large valley, and about ten miles from the airport I detected a faint smell of smoke. At the time I wondered how a fire in such a vast area with wind, would be concentrated enough to be detectable in the cockpit. I'm used to smelling smoke in the cockpit during large, active fires...but this was a simulated fire, and it was downwind. As I got closer to the airport, the smell got stronger. I did an overhead approach to the runway, and as I crossed over the numbers at a thousand feet, the cockpit began to fill with smoke. As I crossed the threshold during landing it was becoming hard to see and my eyes were burning. I vented the cockpit as I roled out, and breathed through an opening in one canopy door.

As I cleared the runway the cockpit became thick with smoke, and shortly thereafter the brakes (and as a consequence steering) failed. I had a fire on board, with a newly installed dual electrical hydraulic pump. A pressure switch which was supposed to cylce the pump on and off had failed, allowing the pump to run continuously, and the pump burned up...and caught fire. I was able to exit the airplane, remove a side panel which covered the pump, and put out the fire.

Had I been closely monitoring the electrical load, I'd have seen the pump running by a higher amperage output; it would have given me a clue...it would have been detectable. This wasn't an engine in this particular case, it was an onboard fire. However, I'd flown this airplane for several years previously, and it had used an engine driven hydraulic pump...no reason to monitor that ammeter that closely. The pump was a brand new installation, this was my first flight with the new system. This underscores several points, starting with knowing one's specific airplane, intimately. Another is one previously made; airplanes and systems talk to you. Sometimes that very little, nearly imperceptible voice, is all the warning you get. A third addresses the following quote:

Which do people think is more important...going for the best field or picking a worse one that is much closer so you can do a circuit around it?


You have only one priority; getting down safely. Flying a traffic pattern is a nice extra, but you don't often get to choose a real emergency; it chooses you. Consequently, you don't always get to choose the chance to fly a pattern, and you won't always have the altitude or opportunity to do it. In the latter case described above, had the situation become more developed and manifest itself earlier, I wouldn't have flown the overhead aproach, but would have entered straight in. Had it occured away from the airport, I'd have put it down on the high desert floor, or a road if one was available.

Don't give up a good landing site in favor of trying to fly a pattern. Flying a pattern sometimes makes landing a little easier, but the pattern isn't the thing. The safe landing is. Don't lose sight of the goal.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Radial piston engines require proper handling techniques to prevent damage through miss handling.

Radial piston engines are not all alike in reliability...for instance take the P&W 1340 and compare them to the P&W 985 ( Both are relatively small Radials )

The 1340 is no where near as reliable as the 985.

I have never had a 985 quit on me in many thousands of hours flying them in the Stinson Reliant/ Stearman/ Beech 18 wheels and floats/ Anson mark 5/ and the Beaver.

[Dan Winterland]

Sounds like some of us can afford better cars than others! Personally, I've alway driven old second hand cars - and I've had plenty of engines stop on me! The best (worst!) was my Fiat Uno which suffered terribly from carb icing. Can't remember the number of times I had to stop at the side of the road to wait for the ice to melt. But of course, we can do something about carb icing in aero engines. Which is why we are largely comparing apples to oranges.

I've had fourteen engne failures in my career. They have ranged from spectacular detructions with flames and molten metal flying everywhere to a lack of throttle response. On twelve of these ocaisions, I've had another three engines still running, so they weren't much of an event. On the two single engined aircraft where I've had the failure, one was due to a damaged throttle linkage, the other a FADEC failure with an associated problem with the manual backup system. But both of these resulted in a sucessful forced landing (using the SLA method), but I'm trying to back up the point already made that there are plenty of ways for an engine to fail.

Which is why when I was instructing, when training people for an emergency, I rarely gave the student the standard fire or catestrophic failure. The failure which will get you is the inocuous progressive and 'gentle' failure which may not be noticed for a while, or will lead the natural optimist at the controls to believe that eventually everything will turn out OK. Rarely in life - and never when instructor induced, will this be the case!

[fernytickles]

The only radial I have spent any real time behind was the Huosai (Nanchang CJ6 engine). The Chinese may have an appalling Human Rights record, but they build a nice, reliable, strong engine. Not a single hiccup in the nearly 7 years I flew it. Top quality maintenance had a lot to do with that too.

That engine failure in the 146 was a no warning, catastrophic type. Fairly woke us up at the time. And it was interesting to reflect on how we handled it. Not just from the point of sticking to SOPs, but how we handled it personally. I was operating the radio, and I can tell you, at one point my vocal chords contracted so I sounded even squeakier than normal, making it quite hard to talk. Just a physical reaction, nothing that I could predict or, possibly, prevent. I didn't feel panicky inside, but I guess some part of me must have gone into "fight or flight" mode. Only lasted a split second, but could have been a problem if it hadn't passed.

We were both very concerned during the flight to our diversion. As there was no warning or hint of anything being wrong, there was always the very slim possibility that whatever had caused one engine to go from full power to nought with a very loud bang, all needles in the red arc, then to zero, could affect the other 3 engines. Not a comfortable feeling at all.

Of course, with hindsight, once we knew what had caused the failure, the likelihood of that happening was very small.

Going back to the physical reaction, thats something you really cannot predict. Therefore, having all the SOPs/PFLs procedures so they are second nature will help when things do go to the dogs. Second nature should take over, while the physical reaction is doing its own thing in the background.

[Rispud]

Hi all,

Many years ago I was doing a trial lesson in a very old C150 as the club was short of aircraft. The student asked what would happen if the engine stopped. I said we would glide and find a field and land. He wanted to know more, so I idled the engine and showed him what would happen. He would not have it, saying the engine was still running. So I pulled the mixture, slowed down and stopped the engine. Then he was happy, I continued showing him which field we would land in and then went to re-start. Those old Cessnas had a T handle that you pulled to rotate the starter and it came off in my hand!! I just had enough room to build up enough speed to get started again and zoom over the field at low level, and continue back for a normal landing.

Certainly one of many close shaves I had in my career.

[SNS3Guppy]

That is why engine-out practice should always be conducted fully prepared to land to a full stop.

Diving for the field in the hopes of getting engine rotation and a restart isn't a good idea; if it doesn't start, you may well give up your chance for a successful forced landing.

Don't pull the power if you're not willing to go all the way.