Engine Failure

[dkatwa]

Hi...conventional wisdom here in UK is that, if an engine fails, try not to land on a road: 'just because you are in danger, does not mean you should put other people in danger'

What is the guidance in Canada/ USA, with wide open and, sometimes, empty roads?

[angry inch]

Absolutely... I'm takin' the road. (doing my best to avoid any automobiles!) I even remember my private license instructor simulating failures and emphasizing going for the nice, paved surface with a centreline... Albeit our roads over here don't have the same volume of traffic as in many other countries.

[GMC1500]

Sort of an odd question, but I learned to fly and trained others in the winnipeg area, where it is as flat as a plate of piss, and arrow straight roads (mostly gravel) criss cross the landscape making perfect 1 mile squares.
During my commercial training, my instructor actually had me do a touch and go on an empty gravel road, which is something that was certainly discussed in the private training, but actually doing it gave me quite a confidence boost.
When I became an instructor, I did the same thing with my commercial students. Its not as easy as it sounds, even in the empty prairies, as telephone lines, trees, road signs, and the occasional car make it hard to find that perfect road on which to try it.

[dkatwa]

Thanks for the comments..I have yet to fly in Canada and hope to do that in the near future

[lilflyboy262...2]

Its an interesting argument.

I know of a C172 which had an engine failure and landed on a road. Plane was fixed and flown off of said road with no problems.

About 2 months later, a C210 had an engine failure, tried to land on the road but hit a car. Killed all on board the aircraft but car passengers survived.

Personally, given the choice I would take a road in a small aircraft. Larger aircraft, maybe not so.

[Mostly Harmless]

It depends on where you are.

In the prairies, take a field because you don't have to deal with (as mentioned above) power lines (you might not see until it is too late), signs, cars, and the crown of the road taking you into the ditch.

If you are in the mountains or a heavily forested area, take the road, railway tracks or anywhere else you can get a clearing that isn't a swamp.

So, there is no perfect answer. It will depend upon location, situation and opportunity.

[Rollingthunder]

We had a C172 land on the bridge to YVR a few years ago, on a curve. Crumpled the right wing a bit. I happened to be on the road behind him when he came in, (He ran out of gas)

[rotornut]

A friend of mine had an engine failure near Ottawa in the middle of winter. He landed on a 2 lane highway with little traffic. About 15 minutes after landing a big yellow S & R helicopter appeared overhead as he had put out a MAYDAY call. Anyway, there was no damage and the aircraft was allowed to take off after being checked out.

By the way the cause of the failure was carb icing - it happened during a thaw when the temperature went above feezing with high humidity.

[The Old Fogducker]

I flew a 172 off a road when one of our renters ran out of fuel about 6 miles short of the airport. No big deal, and I don't think I deserved a medal or anything.

The Ag applicators operated from gravel grid roads in my area for decades and aside from rolling a few into the ditch and writing off the airplane out of thousands of operations, nothing unusual for those guys..... part of doing business.

Its about selecting the right spot at the right time with the right aircraft, not a blanket yes or no to landing on roads.

OFD

[J.O.]

I remember when a local doctor ran out of fuel (at night) just a few miles from the airport in his C172. He was directly over a lightly travelled highway but his instructor had told him to never land on a road. So, he aimed for an empty field adjacent to the highway. He ended up landing in a corn field that was planted in the middle of an abandoned gravel quarry. Lucky for him, he came to a grinding halt some 30 feet short of a wall of gravel and rock that was 40 feet high at the end of the field. The wings had to be removed to get it out of the field because it was too short to fly it out. Afterwards, he said he shouldn't have listened to his instructor, who just happened to be the same guy who had taught him to never trust his fuel guages and to always check his tanks with a dip stick, something he didn't do that day because "he was in a hurry to get home". :rolleyes:

[rotornut]

The Ag applicators operated from gravel grid roads in my area for decades
A friend of mine occasionally used gravel roads in the Luseland area for his Ag Truck. However, the big problem, according to him, was that the prop would get damaged from picking up bits of gravel. He much preferred an airport runway.

[kenora]

I was flying a 337 between Red Deer and Edmonton (muni) a few dozen years ago when I overflew the recovery of a Bonanza that had been flying a similar route N bound when it suffered an engine failure.

As I passed overhead the fire/amb and Police were just arriving and making their way the 100 yards east of the #2 highway to the upside down Beech.

I couldn't offer anything useful so I continued but later learned that he considered landing on the two lane divided (includes a wide median) but chose the field instead.

He told media that he was sure he could plop it between northbound traffic (not heavy at mid afternoon) but recalled being warned NOT to land on the pavement for fear of hitting a post or pole; so he elected the field, wet gooey field and a low wire fence line ended with him upside down.

Minor injuries but a destroyed airplane.

I think that landing on a 60 ft wide nearly level and smooth (certainly more so than the field) paved road would have been preferable.

Just my observation from a 1000 ft up.

[iflyforpie]

Many places in Canada, there are no other options than a road. If you go north, often you will see signs warning you to watch for landing aircraft. Lots of range and township roads too in the flatlands that are suitable for routinely landing an aircraft due to the spareness of traffic.

But in an emergency, I'd take a field over a road if I had both available. With the field, the chances of survival are very great and the chances of involving third parties are minimal.

[pigboat]

President Eisenhower authorized the construction of the Interstate Highway system in the US. I forget the exact stipulation, but I seem to remember that after every curve there was required to be a straightaway of at least 6000 feet in order to land an aircraft should the need arise. That wasn't to accommodate an engine failure of course. The Defense Department figured they'd need the roads in case of a conflict with Russia.

[Chinook7]

Really depends,

At the end of the dayit is ALWAYS the P.I.C's best decision as to what will mitigate the overall damage from the crash; that of course including collateral damage, damage to his aircraft, and overall injury to himself and passengers. As the saying goes "There is a difference between what TC will have you do, and what youwill actually do when you are in that situation".

Having been trained in the prairies it is my opinion that I'd take the field, for the most part you should be clear of obstacles, setup as best you can for a soft field. Damage should be minimal. That’s my 2 cents worth at least.

Flying out in the mountains, a road may be your better option. Again good P.D.M is what it boils down to.

-Chinook

[MarkJJ]

My buddy put down on a road near Yorkton recently, good job he did too!

[MarkerInbound]

President Eisenhower authorized the construction of the Interstate Highway system in the US. I forget the exact stipulation, but I seem to remember that after every curve there was required to be a straightaway of at least 6000 feet in order to land an aircraft should the need arise. That wasn't to accommodate an engine failure of course. The Defense Department figured they'd need the roads in case of a conflict with Russia.


It's a myth. Most of the military planes of that era needed more than 6000 feet to operate.

One Mile in Five: Debunking the Myth - Vol. 63· No. 6 - Public Roads (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/00mayjun/onemileinfive.cfm)

[MarkerInbound]

Oh, and I've put a glider on a road (1-26). Spent 5 minutes over a field at 800 feet, not going up but not going down very fast. Finally figured it was time and used the road next to the field. Had always heard not to use roads because of signs, power lines and fences but after orbiting the area for 5 minutes I figured there was nothing there. Certainly made the recovery easier.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hi...conventional wisdom here in UK is that, if an engine fails, try not to land on a road: 'just because you are in danger, does not mean you should put other people in danger'

What is the guidance in Canada/ USA, with wide open and, sometimes, empty roads?

I tell my students the best way to handle an engine failure is to not have the engine fail in the first place. I find it unsurprising that the most of the examples of actual forced landings involved airplanes which had run out of gas or where the pilot had let carb ice build until the engine failed.

The accident statistics show that at least 80 % of all engine failures are the direct result of the actions or inactions of the pilot.

Before worrying about whether you should or should not land on a road I would suggest you make sure that you are operating the aircraft in a way that will minimize the possibility of a pilot induced engine failure. This means a very good understanding of how the aircraft systems work and personal commitment to following the SOP's and checklists that will reduce the possibility of your mistake causing everything to go quiet at an inopportune time.

[lilflyboy262...2]

BPF. Thats true what you say, but that also means that every 1 in 5 failures is mechanical.
We all know that some pilots fly their entire careers without having a failure of any sort due to good management and decision making, but we also know others who have had pistons or compressor blades let go out of the blue.

In short, what I'm getting at is, I would prefer you gave some of your foxy wisdom for the 20% of failures that we didn't cause ;)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

In short, what I'm getting at is, I would prefer you gave some of your foxy wisdom for the 20% of failures that we didn't cause.

Exactly lilflyboy262...2........:ok:

Is it possible that even those pilots who use good decision making and are extra pro active in their inspections of their airplanes and the maintenance thereof could still have a sudden unexpected engine failure? :E

Looking back on my career I should have had about four times more engines quit on me because believe me the ones that quit sure had nothing to do with anything I had done.......in fact two PT 6's failed on me and the failures sure were not predictable.

Then again what would I know compared to some of the real experts here?

[rigpiggy]

Don't kill anybody on the ground
Don't kill anybody in the airplane
Don't wreck the airplane

in that order

[Big Pistons Forever]

Chuck

I am assuming the original poster is a PPL flying a simple fixed gear Piper/Cessna light aircraft

So to keep the comparison one of apples to apples I have three questions for you. Since you have 50 + years of flying experience I figure you represent a pretty big sample size:ok:

1) How many off airport forced landings have you made where the single engine lycoming or Continental powered aircraft suffered a unforeseeable mechanical failure

2) How many times when flying a single engine lycoming or Continental powered aircraft have you had the engine fail but were able to restart it and make it to an airport.

3) How many times when flying a single engine lycoming or Continental powered aircraft did you recognize a failing engine and where able to nurse it to the nearest airport.

Personally my experience is as follows (nine years as a PPL followed by 25 years flying commercially)

I have had no instances of a Q 1 scenario,

three instances of a Q 2 scenario, (inadvertantly ran a tank dry :O twice and once had a case of an internal mag failure which massively advanced the spark and basically killed the engine. Selecting only the good mag restored normal power)

one instance of a Q3 scenario (the engine in a C 150 ate its oill pump. I caught the oil pressure dropping in time to make it back to the airport before the engine seized.)

So for me I have had none of the 20 percenter engine failures and 4 engine failures that I prevented from turning into a off airport for real forced approach, by either fixing the problem or recognizing it early enough I could get to an airport and make a normal landing. Or to put it another way I was able to not join 80 percenters club. My goal is to keep that record.

My only point is that while the possibility exists that you may have to make the choice of road of using a road because the engine failed in an unforeseeable way, the probability (as reflected in the accident stats) is that you could either get the engine going again and for what ever reason did not, or it gave you some warning which you did not appreciate in time.

So I think it is important for lower time pilots to make a serious evaluation of how they are actively working to avoid the common pilot caused engine failures of fuel exhaustion/mismanagement/contamination and carb ice and to make sure they have a good understanding of the aircraft systems and performance and regularly practice the emergency vital actions needed to restore power
If you can't put your hand on your heart and say to yourself "yes I have got that stuff firmly in hand" then I would suggest that you start with that list before worrying about road or no road for the engine failure scenario.

That does not mean you ignore the 20 percenter scenarios, just don't assign them a unrealistically high probability especially if it comes at the expense of working at eliminating failures that were within your ability to prevent.

[Big Pistons Forever]

In short, what I'm getting at is, I would prefer you gave some of your foxy wisdom for the 20% of failures that we didn't cause ;)

Pretty much everything you got taught about forced approaches at flight school is crap. If the engine fails your only priority is to survive the crash

So what makes a survivable crash? The accident record is clear as long as the aircraft hits approximately wings level and in a level pitch attitude and has a least a short ground run to reduce the deacceleration forces then there is a very high (98 % ish) probability that no will be killed. On the last point a steady 9 Gee deacceration from 60 kts to 0 kts takes less then 25 feet.

The killer crashes are the ones where you hit in a steep nose down and/or steeply banked; or where you hit an immovable solid object at flying speed.

If the engine fails you should be able to do a cause check in less than 15 seconds. Proficiency here will help stop you from unnecessarily joining the 80 % club. My experience is that most PPL's don't practice this enough to be proficient. No joy on the cause check ? Well you are one unlucky pilot :{

Pick your field using the following criteria in that order

Close (a crappy field close is always better then a great field farther away)

Open ( ie no obstacles on the approach)

Flat (You don't need thousands of feet of golf grass, a couple of hundred that is free of major obstacles will do fine)

Point the aircraft at the selected space, trim for the glide and concentrate a getting the airplane to the chosen touch down point under control. If it looks like you are going to overshoot your touchdown point smash the aircraft into the ground with forward stick

That foxy enough for you......

[lilflyboy262...2]

That's perfect and exactly the type of advice that I was after from the more experienced guys like yourself.

Me? I have been flying for about 10yrs and haven't had so much as a splutter.
I truly hope it continues this way. Doesn't mean I am not ready for it either.

Know your surroundings, and know your planes capabilities.
I asked my Cojo the other day what he would do if the engine quit right now. He looked around and there was nothing. Suggested a controlled slow landing into the bendy young poplar trees.
There was a runway 18nm away, with a road that led all the way there.
We were at 8,500ft AGL. 500fpm decent with 90kts glide speed. I would sure as heck give it a crack and just re-evaluate every 1000ft.
Quick mental maths means that I should have been able to get 25.5 miles out of the glide. Should have arrived over the field with around 2000ft to spare.

Would that not be the better option?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

1) How many off airport forced landings have you made where the single engine lycoming or Continental powered aircraft suffered a unforeseeable mechanical failure.


Answer.......1


2) How many times when flying a single engine lycoming or Continental powered aircraft have you had the engine fail but were able to restart it and make it to an airport.


Answer.......0


3) How many times when flying a single engine lycoming or Continental powered aircraft did you recognize a failing engine and where able to nurse it to the nearest airport.



Answer.........0


So for me I have had none of the 20 percenter engine failures and 4 engine failures that I prevented from turning into a off airport for real forced approach, by either fixing the problem or recognizing it early enough I could get to an airport and make a normal landing. Or to put it another way I was able to not join 80 percenters club.


I have had eight engine failures in multi engine airplanes....six in big radials and two on turbine engines.

All of my engine failures ended at airports on the remaining engine with no further damage to the airplanes.