Great step-by-step of a real engine failure in IMC.

[AdamFrisch]

Good job on all parts. Easy to fault him for wanting to get on the ground a little to early, but in a real life scenario, I think most of us would have done the same.

Real Pilot Story: Engine Failure in IMC - YouTube

[Genghis the Engineer]

Very interesting, and well presented.

I couldn't help laugh when he phoned ATC to say he was down alive, and their first response was to cancel his IFR flight plan. But they must have been having nearly as much a white knuckle ride as he did.

I personally think that ATC was right to steer him to the airfield they did - because it wasn't surrounded by connurbation. The fact that he, and most of the aeroplane, survived, seems to bear that out.

In retrospect *perhaps* he could or should have killed the engine once on short finals, and *perhaps* he could have landed a little earlier by sideslipping off the last bit of height, as well as used that and/or S-turns to get rid of his excess speed.

But his main learning points about decision making and communication strike me as excellent. And clearly, regardless of any nitpicking I or anybody else can do, he AND ATC handled it damned well.

If that had been me, I'd pull it apart and criticise myself, but still feel very proud to have pulled it off.

G

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Re the landing and overrun after an engine problem - BTDTGTTS (or would have done had I not had 2km of tarmac).

Engine glitch downwind, then as per that report I turned base too soon and came in too high and too fast. Stopped within the last, rather than the usual first, quarter of the runway.

Next time I'm within reach of a runway with an iffy engine: set up for a glide approach, engine to idle, land. As per training. But it does somehow seem to go out of the window.

[peterh337]

A moving map GPS running something like this

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kithira/ozi1.jpg

is a good option for a scenario like that :)

[Deeday]

Has Emergency replaced Mayday in the US standard phraseology?

[dkatwa]

Hi...excellent presentation and something that we can all learn from...keep calm and rely on your training...

I have only a VFR and was wondering if anyone has had an engine failure at night, in a SEP? How would you cope and how would you know if the black patch below is a field, lake, trees etc? If your navigation is spot on, then it would be an easier task to identify these but what if you are also lost and you don't know where you are (well, buses come in two and threes....!)

[mm_flynn]

Has Emergency replaced Mayday in the US standard phraseology?
Yes....



Not really, the official terminology is similar to the UK. However, it seems to be omitted from almost all emergency transmissions in the US (Even commercial).

The common (though not correct) phraseology is

'I have/am declaring an [low, medical, engine out, low power, ...] emergency'

or

'Ah, this, uh, Cactus 1539. Hit birds, we lost thrust in both engines. We're turning back'

[AdamFrisch]

I have only a VFR and was wondering if anyone has had an engine failure at night, in a SEP? How would you cope and how would you know if the black patch below is a field, lake, trees etc? If your navigation is spot on, then it would be an easier task to identify these but what if you are also lost and you don't know where you are (well, buses come in two and threes....!)

Well, the general consensus when this question is raised is to go for what you can see, i.e. roads and lit areas. That said, if it's a moonlit night and your eyes have had time to acclimatise properly and your dash is turned way down, it's actually quite surprising how much you do see at night.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you analyse AAIB reports, ATSB reports, you name it - pretty much all pilots are incredibly reluctant to use the "M" word.

G

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I have only a VFR and was wondering if anyone has had an engine failure at night, in a SEP? How would you cope and how would you know if the black patch below is a field, lake, trees etc? If your navigation is spot on, then it would be an easier task to identify these but what if you are also lost and you don't know where you are (well, buses come in two and threes....!)


Doing some night flying towards the rating (still haven't got it yet) i asked a similar question, my instructor said "keep the landing light off until you think your near the ground, then turn the landing light on, if you don't like what you see - turn it off"

Look for flood lights!! sport fields are your friends. Although a daylaight inspection of our closest sports field had very inconveniently placed, and very solid junction boxes between each light pole, very nasty if you chose to land between.:eek:

[peterh337]

I rarely fly at night - precisely because no matter what you do, there are so few options. Over water, you can (and should) carry a life raft, but there is no viable escape route for night flight.

You could wear NVGs :) But anything short of 3rd Gen NVGs is pretty useless, the 3G ones cannot be legally imported into the UK (well not by Joe Public), and the whole cockpit / instrument lighting system would need to be revamped for NVG compatibility. Also, people who fly with NVGs have a lot of extra training.

In practice, most airports are closed at night anyway :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

I rarely fly at night - precisely because no matter what you do, there are so few options. Over water, you can (and should) carry a life raft, but there is no viable escape route for night flight.


I very much agree, I basically do not fly singles at night outside the circuit anymore as I am not prepared to accept the risk. BTW a study of accidents in the USA suggest for non instrumented rated PPL's flying single engine aircraft the risk of a fatal accident is up to 25 times higher then for an equivalent flight during the day.........

[peterh337]

Indeed, but I think that is because they lose control while still airborne, not when they hit the ground :)

I regard night flight = instrument flight.

[AdamFrisch]

I rarely fly at night - precisely because no matter what you do, there are so few options. Over water, you can (and should) carry a life raft, but there is no viable escape route for night flight.

It terrifies me even in a twin at times. Came back on my last leg into Los Angeles about 2 months ago and had to traverse some of the higher peaks in the Sierra Nevada range after dark. My mind was set on getting back and not stop so close to home (I know, not good, but that's how it was). Pitch black, and under me are jagged peaks well above my single engine ceiling should one quit... Since it's also high desert there's literally not a light in sight - nobody lives there and there are no roads. It's just a black hole in front of you. So you simply have to hope your QNH is correct and that the published peak altitudes or MEA's are correct.. When the lights of Palm Springs finally appeared ahead of me, it was like being born again.

[peterh337]

You can check the altimeter against a GPS.

GPS altitude is normally very accurate (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kithira/1306.jpg).

I know one uses barometric altimetry for good reasons but all GPWS systems use GPS altitude and its accuracy as a standalone source, not subject to an incorrect QNH setting etc, is inescapable.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You can check the altimeter against a GPS.

GPS altitude is normally very accurate (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kithira/1306.jpg).

I know one uses barometric altimetry for good reasons but all GPWS systems use GPS altitude and its accuracy as a standalone source, not subject to an incorrect QNH setting etc, is inescapable.

In this one instance, I'd turn it around.

My interest (engine failure in IMC) would be putting the aeroplane on something flat and large in one piece. I'll talk to somebody and declare an emergency, at which point I simply don't care about airspace busts or deconflicting with other traffic - that's all somebody else's problem.

So, I'd simply use GPS as my primary altimeter, particularly making use of my (up to date!) terrain and obstactles database. I'd also use it as my primary speed indicator - since it gives me groundspeed and distance, and either from there or my VSI I have RoD, it should be pretty easy to answer the vital question "will I get there, pointed in the right direction, with air still under the tyres?" without faffing around with mental arithmetic that I just don't have time for at this point.

Most other times, the altimeter is primary - but not this time. Ditto airspeed - so long as I stay adequately away from Stall/Vne, I'll start worrying about the airspeed around 1000ft when I'm sorting my approach out.

G

[peterh337]

The problem is that you still need a GPS moving map which shows you where you need to glide to, in a very clear manner.

I didn't watch the whole video above (it's a simulation, after all) but I recall there was another similar video going around where a Cirrus pilot used synthetic vision to get down through IMC, following an engine failure. Maybe it is the same one? SV should be very good for that purpose. You just need to be high enough above the terrain to start with ;)

I have not been able to find a piece of software which would deliver SV on the winXP tablet I fly with, which is why I fly with that stuff I posted a pic of. It was laboriously generated from the Google Terrain map server, using a piece of software whose developers got sued (and otherwise threatened) because it hogs the server bandwidth so it no longer officially exists in that version.

One day, this thing might save my life.

SV does exist; my son had worldwide SV on X-Plane a few years ago. It involved about 6 DVDs with the NASA SRTM data. But that implementation was not viable for in-flight use. One needs something which you just turn on and off it goes.

[abgd]

If you analyse AAIB reports, ATSB reports, you name it - pretty much all pilots are incredibly reluctant to use the "M" word.


You mean they didn't just deprecate it 'cos it's French?

[Ultranomad]

If you analyse AAIB reports, ATSB reports, you name it - pretty much all pilots are incredibly reluctant to use the "M" word.
You mean they didn't just deprecate it 'cos it's French?
For better or for worse, but there is a culture of understatement among pilots. I remember reading some radiotelephony textbook for ATC, which said explicitly: if a pilot says "We have a little problem", you can be sure the problem is quite serious.

[stickandrudderman]

I've recently installed a new panel in my aeroplane and we (me and my co-owner) were deliberating over whether to iclude SV in our spec.
My contention was "what on earth for, you can look out of the window" and then someone pointed me to this:

Aircraft Engine Failure IMC with Synthetic Vision - YouTube (http://youtu.be/27VPOMfH7OM)

and the decision was made for me.

I've just started test flying the aeroplane with its' new panel and after only three hours I lost sight of the runway on finals due to the low sun; a quick glance at the screen and there was the runway laid before me.

If you're in a position to install it I highly recommend that you do!:D

[Gertrude the Wombat]

if a pilot says "We have a little problem", you can be sure the problem is quite serious
Oh, so that's what I'm doing wrong!

If I have a little problem I say so ... and at least three times I've seen the fire trucks returning to base as I taxy off the runway :):):)

[Ultranomad]

Stickandrudderman, while synthetic vision is certainly a great technology, one should be aware of a possible illusion of invulnerability it can create in insufficiently skilled airmen. Also, its usefulness depends on personal habits. Compare it to car navigation: some people prefer 3D / track up mode, some prefer 2D / north up.

[stickandrudderman]

Inadvertantly losing sight of the ground on finals or in an emergency like the one in the link has the effect of making a pilot feel vulnerable; having SV helps to relieve that feeling of vulnerability and enable continued safe passage.
I did not and would not suggest that it should be used as a primary source of reference!
It's a bit like saying that the BRS is a landing system that pilots might become over-reliant on...........................:E

[Cobalt]

I think SV is a great tool for an IMC engine failure in less-than-flat terrain or with lowish ceilings, and with the EGPWS colour overlay might also add to safety in mountaious terrain when VMC.

Other than that, it is probably a matter of taste whether to have it on or off, with one exception:

On an ILS approach, I think it should be OFF. The reason for that is that you have a very tempting synthetic runway to fly to, but you should fly the needles. I found that I need to concentrate more on maintaining a proper scan with SV on - far too easy to be lazy and fly the SV display while kidding yourself that you are flying the ILS.

This is less of an issue with NPAs, where the GPS driven SV position is as accurate as or more accurate than the needles - as long as you make sure you don't bust the step altitudes. And of course on a LPV (WAAS) GPS approach the needles and SV are driven by the same source, so this is a non-issue.

If I had the half million to spend on a new aircraft with G1000, I would get it - but in my 50 or so hours behind G1000s, I always had it off so far.

[M-ONGO]

On an ILS approach, I think it should be OFF. The reason for that is that you have a very tempting synthetic runway to fly to, but you should fly the needles. I found that I need to concentrate more on maintaining a proper scan with SV on - far too easy to be lazy and fly the SV display while kidding yourself that you are flying the ILS.

Crazy! Close to the ground is exactly where it's needed!

[peterh337]

The problem is that the database is not all that accurate. It is based on the NASA SRTM (http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/) synthetic aperture radar database, or at least the reduced-resolution version of it that is released to the great unwashed.

I believe that some players in the aviation business have "enhanced" the data at/around some airports (on expensive implementations of SV) but I don't think that SV is anywhere near good enough to beat a standard 200ft ILS on which you keep the needles below half scale. The standard resolution on the public version is of the order of 200ft. Better in the continental USA (where some of the imagery is amazingly good) and worse in some other places.

A funny observation might be that if SV existed say 50 years ago, the distinction between VFR and IFR would now be moot :) A PPL might just be a straight "license to fly".

[northwatch]

It happened to me a little more than a year ago. Enginefailure just after getting established on the localizer, but still about 10DME. Was already on initial approach altitude, which logically I could not maintain (single engine plane). Wx was miserable with snow, gusty and low ceiling. But we were just out of the clouds. I knew that straight ahead was elevated terrain. Everything was just black.

I immediately established best glide, informed atc and turned left by about 90°, because I identified lights from streets and villages there. After a few moments two larger villages and a rather straight road between them, with heavy traffic (rush hour) emerged from the dark around. Luckily there was even an urban train parallel and very close to the road driving along. I decided to "land" between the road and the tracks (which were no longer visible), assuming least obstacles and least potential harm to lives on the ground in that area, while still close enough to the road for possible rescuers.

We made it and both my wife and I were able to disembarque the plane on own forces with very minor injuries. The plane was damaged beyond repair.

My comment on earlier articles in this matter: It's ok to look for the light. But don't plan to land into it, unless you can identify enough to ensure safety, primarily for Lives on ground and secondarily Lives on board. With a complete enginefailure at night, possibly in IMC, I believe it is safe to assume occupants on board will not survive. Nevertheless as long as the vehicle is moving PIC is responsible and obliged to minimize all hazards and especially be considerate towards Lives on the ground. Staying calm untill the plane comes to a complete halt is very helpful in handling situations like this. Just remember: there is lots of time to panic after all is over - so just postpone possible panic attacks!

Landing on a street could be a (good) option only if traffic allows (ie. you are definitely able to touch down between to succeeding cars, without endangering oncoming traffic) and no obstacles like crossing bridges or lights or so are visible.

I'm aware that we were extremely lucky in this one and I'm especially thankfull that nobody gut seriously hurt.

[AdamFrisch]

Wow, North. That's a harrowing story, glad you walked away.

[Katamarino]

This is very similar to an emergency that I had in 2010. This time, instead of IMC, it was a cloudy night and we were over coastal Florida above a swampy area with no lights. Like this case, the engine was still running, but not well enough to stay airborne; we could just "stretch the glide".

There were two airports within range. One was larger, and 13 miles away, but across a wide bay. The other was on the same bit of albeit swampy land that we were over, but unattended; and the pilot controlled lighting wasn't working. It was not near any lighted areas, either, so a real black hole. We made the decision to go for the further field, but it became clear immediately that we were unlikely to make it,

So, the small unlit field it was. We used the KLN94 GPS to draw an OBS line through the airport icon, centered on it, and rotated it to the runway heading. Then, using the GPS on full zoom we flew a DIY instrument approach using the OBS line as a localizer and the altimeter as a glideslope.

The aircraft's landing light picked out the runway centreline at about 10ft. We landed safely.