Struggling with PFLs

[Emkay]

PFL seems to be my one major stumbling block and I can't seem to get any better at them. I would appreciate some help and tips on what I could do to make it a little easier, and more structured. Assuming I am at 2500ft above ground level, the things I am struggling with are:

- How do I know if the field is within an accessible and convenient distance?
- My local area has more square fields than rectangular ones, is it okay to choose a square field?
- Should I always choose a field on my left hand side?
- How do I just what distance to keep from the field at certain heights?

Any help for this noob would be much appreciated.

[JuicyLucy]

How are your glide approaches?
If you have trouble with them then thats the place to start....
If you are ok with them then find a quiet airfield and do PFLs to the runway, after that then picking fields is not so much of a problem.

[Heston]

What answers did your instructor give to those questions when you asked them?


Good explanation given here and the pages it links through to:


Gremline Flight Safety Digest: Forced Landings in Light Aircraft (http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0034.htm)


I think it answers all your questions.


My tip? Practice, practice, practice...

[PPLvirgin]

Hi Emkay - i didnt really suffer any issues but have only newly passed. Whenever on a dual somewhere, the end of a lesson we would do a quick pfl, last few outings was pfl onto the field so it helped a lot.

it really is practice. The airforce use a different approach to what your taught in a local flyinh school, pick your field and keep that field at a 45 degree angle on the tip of your left wing - hard to explain in detail on here but worked for me - if your too close you base turn will be too tight and if its too far out, your base angle is far too wide.

also, sounds like your looking for the perfect fied, if its wide and square and ther eis no perfect option, land diagonally if you need to etc..

hope that helps, am sure lots of others will contribute also.

regards

Tris

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I was regularly told off for wasting time and height trying to pick a field where the aircraft could be easily recovered or flown back out of. It overcomplicated the process that, in simple terms, is primarily to save your life. Once I concentrated on saving myself and stopped worrying about breaking the aeroplane, PFLs suddenly became much easier and less stressful. Just my own experience, for what it's worth and probably not relevant to your own difficulty.

[shortstripper]

Practice is the best advice really.

2500' gives loads of time .... but that's easy to say when you've been flying a while and a lot of the workload is instinctive (hence practice).

My advice then ... Fly the aeroplane first .... I know here you are wanting to impress your instructor / examiner, but in real life when it happens it is the best advice over all else, so I will say it again ... FLY THE AEROPLANE!

After that

1. Always try to be aware of wind direction and turn downwind straight away to give yourself more time unless there's a stonking great obvious field ahead.
2. Use something like a 45 degree angle sight line to the ground as a rough guide in most light aircraft for glide angle. They will usually do much better but it gives a good safety margin.
3. Field selection is again something to practice, but in reality the most important thing for life preservation is to watch out for powerlines, drainage ditches and standing crops. Size, livestock, proximity to a road ect are all nice but not as important. When I flew gliders I'd think about all those things, but in a powered aircraft with an engine failure or in test scenario the most important thing is to select a field where you could land and walk away from the aeroplane even if it hits the far hedge at low speed because it was a bit shorter than ideal.

Most instructors are looking for decisiveness, conviction and safe handling. Half the time you will get to a ridiculously high point and they will say "fine, you'd have made it. Climb away" .... :rolleyes:

SS

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Should I always choose a field on my left hand side?
Given that the instructor/examiner is sitting on the right hand side, s/he might have spotted a nice big field off to the right then pulled the throttle expecting you to aim for that.

To the extent that once, on the throttle being pulled, I said "jolly good, I'm going for that (dead) runway" which was just to the left. The instructor hadn't seen it!!! - and made me pretend it wasn't there and pick somewhere else.

(All of which gamesmanship assumes you're trying to learn to pass the test of course. Different considerations apply if you're wanting to learn how to stay alive, but looking out of the right hand window as well is always worth trying. You might be somewhere where there's nothing but rocks and trees and water out of the left window.)

[Local Variation]

1. your selected field(s) are no further out than your wing tip
2. yes
3. no.....whichever side you choose, keep the field in permanent view
4. get you FI to show you PFLs from various altitudes to demonstrate the skills in judging the distances, descents, flap use etc.

It's not a science as you're discovering, so practice variables and be positive in your decision making and flying. Talk out loud your actions with your FI sat alongside.

Watch out for farmers.........:}

[foxmoth]

As said, it really should be your instructor you go to for this and I am reluctant to give advice as I possibly teach differently on PFLs, but some that should be good for all:-
If in a low wing, a circle drawn through a line 1/2 way along the wing should give you reachable fields, otherwise, as SS says, a 45 downline, this will vary between aircraft so learn what is right for the one you are flying.
Square fields are actually better than long thin ones - a long thin one you can only land in the one direction - a square one you can cut the corner or extend base if you are low or high, then land at an angle.
Fields on the left are better as they are easier to keep in sight, but if you have a good field on the right and rubbish on the left, go for the one on the right.
Do not get low - there are LOADS of ways of losing height - "S" turns, Sideslip, rudder kicks, but virtually NO ways of getting height back without a engine!

[Maoraigh1]

Some instructors insist that you fly a circuit. Do what keeps your instructor happy. Once you have a PPL, get practice with farm strips, for nearest to real situation.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The point of teaching the PFL is so that if you have an engine failure for real you can deal with it.

Some things to think about in keeping the PFL exercise in perspective

1) 80 % of all engine failures are caused by the pilot with carb ice and fuel mismanagement/fuel exhaustion the biggest percentage. The best way to deal with engine failures is to not let the engine fail in the first place.

2) When the engine has failed the insurance company has just bought the airplane. What it looks like after it has come to a stop is absolutely irelevant. What matters is nobody is hurt. Don't think of a PFL as a landing, think of it leading to a controlled crash

3) A steady 9 Gee deacceleration from 60 to 0 kts takes a ground run of 25 feet or one airplane length. Surviving the engine failure means avoiding the sudden stop caused by hitting an immovable object at flying speed. If the airplane hits approximately wings level and in a level flight attitude with a room for a bit of a ground run you will be OK. The take away is the field selection doesn't matter a whole lot. Making you selected touchdown point in control is what matters. Going immediately for the crap field that is close and has good approaches is way better than wasting time trying to find the perfect field.

4) The PFL exercise starts with a sudden and total engine failure. In the real world having a perfectly run engine suddenly totally stop without warning is the least likely scenario. You are much more likely to either have a rough running engine or a partial power loss or some warning the engine will fail soon if you are paying attention

5) If the engine stops as soon as you have set the glide attitude and pointed the airplane at a crashable surface, you should try to get the engine going again as there is a significant possibility that you were the reason it stopped. This means learning and practicing an effective airplane specific "cause check" drill that will restore power. For example for the Pa28 it would carb heat on, boost pump on, change tanks , Mags checked. You should be able to do this without thinking in less than 5 seconds.

6) If you are really stuck with no power getting to your chosen touchdown spot boils down to seeing the desired flight path from where you are now to where you are going and being able to assess whether you are above or below that path and effectively correcting. The best way to learn that is to whenever possible do a gliding approach to land, ideally by closing the throttle on late downwind. Often you can't do that but what you can do is fly level on final until you think you have the field made and then close the throttle. What you want to build is your ability to see the gliding flight path and as a side benefit it will improve you landings

[BackPacker]

BPF: :ok:

I would expand a bit on point 6, and really break it down into two things:

a. Visualizing a path to a field that is the aircraft is actually capable of flying (gliding).
b. Maintaining that path at more or less the proper glide speed and glide angle, so that you arrive at the touchdown point with the proper speed.

a. is something you can only judge from experience. Do lots of glide approaches and PFLs and you will know what the aircraft is capable of. The reason a lot of instructors teach you to fly an abbreviated circuit is to make it easier to visualize a feasible flight path. That's a good start but by no means the only solution. (And the second reason is that lots of engine failures actually happen in the circuit due to pilot (in)actions, or because of latent failures becoming apparent after a power/configuration change.)

b. is only possible if you trim for more or less the proper glide speed almost immediately, and if your actual glide path to achieve a. is a bit above the "best glide" path that the aircraft is capable of. You then maintain the visualized glide path by carefully and continuously getting rid of excess energy. Which is done by deploying flaps, doing S-turns, sideslipping, or a combination of these. If you are not proficient in judging when and how to apply flaps, S-turns or sideslips to achieve a certain desired glide path you'll never make it to your chosen touchdown point at the proper speed.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The point of teaching the PFL is so that if you have an engine failure for real you can deal with it.

Some things to think about in keeping the PFL exercise in perspective

1) 80 % of all engine failures are caused by the pilot with carb ice and fuel mismanagement/fuel exhaustion the biggest percentage. The best way to deal with engine failures is to not let the engine fail in the first place.

I've had 2 partial and 6 full engine failures. The partials were (1) fuel pump failure, (2) never explained, after 18 months of trying to fix it we gave up and sold the aeroplane with a lapsed CofA as a project. The fulls were (1)-->(4) Maladjusted carbs in newly installed engines, and (5) a blocked fuel filter, (6) mucking up a slow roll in an aeroplane with wet-bowl carbs. I have seen no evidence that your 80% is even close, certainly in my case it's 0%. Carb icing is fixable with carb heat - you have to try damned hard to get it far enough to fail.

2) When the engine has failed the insurance company has just bought the airplane. What it looks like after it has come to a stop is absolutely irelevant. What matters is nobody is hurt. Don't think of a PFL as a landing, think of it leading to a controlled crash

All of mine we got to use the aeroplane again, in my opinion flying it as a landing maximises the chances of survival anyhow. Deliberately flying it to a crash in my opinion is just improving the odds of a non-survivable landing.

So I'm afraid that I just don't agree with this oft-repeated "insurance company" argument. My backside is strapped into the aeroplane, and the better condition the aeroplane stays in, the better condition my backside is likely to remain also.

3) A steady 9 Gee deacceleration from 60 to 0 kts takes a ground run of 25 feet or one airplane length. Surviving the engine failure means avoiding the sudden stop caused by hitting an immovable object at flying speed. If the airplane hits approximately wings level and in a level flight attitude with a room for a bit of a ground run you will be OK. The take away is the field selection doesn't matter a whole lot. Making you selected touchdown point in control is what matters. Going immediately for the crap field that is close and has good approaches is way better than wasting time trying to find the perfect field.

I agree with all of this, but the reality is that we're looking for a good-enough field, rather than a perfect field.

4) The PFL exercise starts with a sudden and total engine failure. In the real world having a perfectly run engine suddenly totally stop without warning is the least likely scenario. You are much more likely to either have a rough running engine or a partial power loss or some warning the engine will fail soon if you are paying attention

Ish!

I've had rough running engines and cleared it (for example because I'd got myself into carb icing), or landed off a partial failure / rough running. But I've had several sudden stoppages - on the other hand all but one of those (the blocked fuel filter) were quickly restartable. Which emphasises how important it is after a real or simulated engine failure to go through restart drills, which brings me to...


5) If the engine stops as soon as you have set the glide attitude and pointed the airplane at a crashable surface, you should try to get the engine going again as there is a significant possibility that you were the reason it stopped.

YES !!!!!

This means learning and practicing an effective airplane specific "cause check" drill that will restore power. For example for the Pa28 it would carb heat on, boost pump on, change tanks , Mags checked. You should be able to do this without thinking in less than 5 seconds.
Couldn't agree more.

6) If you are really stuck with no power getting to your chosen touchdown spot boils down to seeing the desired flight path from where you are now to where you are going and being able to assess whether you are above or below that path and effectively correcting. The best way to learn that is to whenever possible do a gliding approach to land, ideally by closing the throttle on late downwind. Often you can't do that but what you can do is fly level on final until you think you have the field made and then close the throttle. What you want to build is your ability to see the gliding flight path and as a side benefit it will improve you landings

I also agree completely, although I would also agree very much with those above who recommend the use of military / glider style constant aspect approach to the landing. Rectangular circuits do not marry well with engine failures as they give far too little scope to make fine adjustments to flight path.

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

G of E

The 80 % figure came from looking at accident reports. At least 80 % all of the engine failures involved causes that were in the control of the pilot.

How many of your engine failures were in simple certified Continental/lycoming engines ?

The OP was talking about the PPL(A) training which by definition will be in a certified aircraft of which the majority are going to be powered by the most reliable engines ever made the Continental O 200 or the Lycoming 0 320.

Now if you are flying around in 2 stroke Rotax powered airplanes then you has better always be in gliding distance of a landable field as it is almost certain it will fail, one of the reasons why I won't fly that class of aircraft.

I think it is vital that flight training teaches real world risk appreciation. If you start you flight in your Cessna/Piper with sufficient uncontaminated fuel selected to the right tank, the aircraft had a normal runup, smoothly made full takeoff power and had normal in flight engine gauge indications; and you had an accident it almost certainly will not because the engine suddenly and without warning failed.

Your accident will probably involve loosing control of yoru aircraft during takeoff or landing or getting lost and running out of fuel or flying into IMC conditions and losing control.

So IMHO the way flight training teaches the PFL is an example where a disproportionate amount of time is spent on a scenario that almost never happens and not enough on ones that actually do. I was doing some training for a CPL student (not mine) the other day. The exercise was a PFL. Instead of pulling the throttle to idle I reduced the power by 300 RPM when the student wasn't looking. No response by the student so I reduced the power by another 300 RPM. The students response was "what happening" to which I said " you tell me" . All I got was a deer in the headlights look. So I said "have we had an engine failure? " Umm maybe ????

Bottom line was the student was mad at me because he said I tricked him. He went on to say in a PFL the instructor is supposed to close the throttle because that was what was on the flight test. :ugh:

The AHH HAH moment for me was early in my instructor career. A student at out school crashed a C 172. The engine failed in some ugly terrain. He did a pretty good job with what he had but the airplane was still destroyed and there were serious injuries. The airplane had 0 gals in the right tank and 11 gals in the left tank but the fuel selector was in the right tank only position. I asked why did he not check the selector. The response was that the instructor emphasized the flying portion of the PFL and we never really spent much time on the checks so when the engine failed I just concentrated on setting the glide and finding a field and landing in it........

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

2) When the engine has failed the insurance company has just bought the airplane. What it looks like after it has come to a stop is absolutely irelevant. What matters is nobody is hurt. Don't think of a PFL as a landing, think of it leading to a controlled crash

3) A steady 9 Gee deacceleration from 60 to 0 kts takes a ground run of 25 feet or one airplane length. Surviving the engine failure means avoiding the sudden stop caused by hitting an immovable object at flying speed. If the airplane hits approximately wings level and in a level flight attitude with a room for a bit of a ground run you will be OK. The take away is the field selection doesn't matter a whole lot. Making you selected touchdown point in control is what matters. Going immediately for the crap field that is close and has good approaches is way better than wasting time trying to find the perfect field.

Total agreement. Once the penny dropped on that, PFLs became considerably simpler. I also found talking through what I was thinking and doing made a considerable difference to my instructor's view of me.

[India Four Two]

I rarely find myself in disagreement with Genghis' posts, but this time I am firmly in BPF's camp.

PFLs became much easier for me when an instructor explained the "insurance company/walking away from the crash" philosophy.

Of course, I still try to plan that the "crash" will be going through a fence at walking speed, rather than undershooting and hitting the fence at 60 kts!

[gemma10]

And once you have committed to a suitable field, do not turn your back on it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

G of E

The 80 % figure came from looking at accident reports. At least 80 % all of the engine failures involved causes that were in the control of the pilot.

How many of your engine failures were in simple certified Continental/lycoming engines ?

None - and yes a lot of my flying is with Rotax 2-strokes, but only one of my total engine failures (the blocked fuel filter); the remainder are a mixture of Jabiru and Gypsy Major, the two partials are a Rotax 2-stroke (the fuel pump), and a certified Franklin 4-stroke (the unexplained). But I treat all single engine flying (which is virtually all of my flying) on the assumption that the engine may stop, and I'm sure you do as well.


One of us is mis-reading the reports somewhere, so I thought I'd have a look at the last half dozen AAIB bulletins:-

Air Accidents Investigation: April 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_2014.cfm)
BAe-146: engine fire on the ground
Islander: engine cowling came off due to poorly fastener
C150: Probably carb icing
TB10: Sudden stoppage, reasons unknown
TB10: Engine fire due faulty carb
RV9A: Stoppage downwind, probably either contaminated fuel or failed bolts.

Air Accidents Investigation: March 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/march_2014.cfm)
PA38: Mis-management of aircraft / use of unleaded / all sorts of problems

Air Accidents Investigation: February 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/february_2014.cfm)
Cassutt Racer: Used mixture instead of carb heat downwind
X'Air: Unknown

Air Accidents Investigation: January 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/january_2014.cfm)
Beech 36: Possible birdstrike
AX2000: Reason unknown
Kolb: Prop shaft failure

Air Accidents Investigation: December 2013 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/december_2013.cfm)
A330: Turbine blade failure
CH601: Structural failure of propeller

Air Accidents Investigation: November 2013 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_2013.cfm)
G115: Mis-assembly of propellers
Piper Cub: Carb Ice
PA28: Incorrect fuel valve selection
P2002: Inconclusive, but possibly carb ice, plug fouling, or fuel starvation
Kolb Twinstar: Fuel starvation, maybe, reason for that unclear - possibly a fuel pump failure?
X'Air: Internal mechanical failure of the engine


So, some carb ice, and some mishandling, and some 2-stroke or uncertified engines. But all in a fairly small minority.

Sorry BPF, but I reall do think that your 80% figure is much overstated.


Anyhow, we're about 80% (!) in agreement about to handle them when they do occur.

And once you have committed to a suitable field, do not turn your back on it.

Yes! I've seen a number of pilots lose their mental picture doing stupidly large S-turns.

On the other hand, I've also seen pilots just fly straight towards what they think is a suitable field, with no use of turns to adjust height, and when they fly like that, they almost always arrive at the field too high or too low and fluff the last bit. I tend to think that this is because they have flown with instructors who:-

- Initiate go-around at 500ft, and
- Fly square cornered glide approaches.

Neither of which, in my opinion, aid learning at-all.

G

[fireflybob]

So IMHO the way flight training teaches the PFL is an example where a disproportionate amount of time is spent on a scenario that almost never happens and not enough on ones that actually do. I was doing some training for a CPL student (not mine) the other day. The exercise was a PFL. Instead of pulling the throttle to idle I reduced the power by 300 RPM when the student wasn't looking. No response by the student so I reduced the power by another 300 RPM. The students response was "what happening" to which I said " you tell me" . All I got was a deer in the headlights look. So I said "have we had an engine failure? " Umm maybe ????

BPF, I agree with the point you are making about partial failures but this shows to me that this pilot was never trained to deal with partial engine failures.

Quite simple for me the number one objective of a forced landing without power is to save your life and that of any passengers, not to mention people on the ground. If this can be done without damaging the aircraft that's a bonus.

Also better to hit the far hedge at taxi speed rather than the near hedge at flying speed.

Make sure you are landing more or less into wind and definitely not downwind - energy is proportional to (ground)speed squared.

Also not enough emphasis on attempting a restart assuming it's not an obvious mechanical failure or fire.

Statistics say you are three times more likely to have a partial engine failure than a total failure so best to teach and practice the partial failure.

Excellent report from Australia here:-

Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single-engine aircraft (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4115270/ar-2010-055_no3.pdf)

[mary meagher]

Right off the bat, page one, the Australian advice on power loss rather than Engine Quits Altogether Suddenly makes sense. No fatalities with sudden stop. Several fatalities with mismanaged loss of power.

My instructor on my last check ride in my Supercub did EXACTLY the right thing to test this possible scenario; He was very sneaky in the back seat reducing the power....but I did notice, and being familiar with the area, and having a fair amount of height in hand, I flew gently back toward the home field, and as the wind was practically non-existant and the field uncontrolled, I did a downwind landing!

It was really too easy, the PFL is every day, in a glider. So we are well practiced in choosing fields, and calculating glides.

The one point I would recommend to beginners in power is to perform the glider pattern/circuit. Quite simple, instead of a square circuit, just cut the corner onto base leg. We call this extra turn the diagonal leg.
You never loose sight of the landing area, you can always adjust the final turn to end up in a safe place. It is, in effect, the RAF constant turn.

DIAGONAL LEG every time, when the local regs will let you, try it and see!

For all that, I chose a setaside field full of very tall weeds on one landout;
and the chaps who came to get me with the glider trailer wondered why I hadn't set it down in the farmer's strip nearby! So intent was I on my circuit and approach I never saw it at all!

[Cows getting bigger]

Trim.
Don't rush.
Remember the wind - landing into a short feild with a 10kt headwind is far better than landing into a slightly longer feild with a 10kt tailwind
Don't rush.
Forget all the checks, radio calls etc until you are set-up, trimmed at a sensible glide speed, around your selected landing point.
Don't rush.
Make sure your aiming point is at laest halfway don the field - you can finesse this later.
Don't rush.
Never, never never try to stretch the glide. You will kill yourself if you stall/spin whereas is unlikely that you will kill yourself rolling into the hedge at the far end of the field.

All of the above is relative tosh if you can find an instructor who will spend lots of time with you. If you are at the PFL stage you should now be experiencing at least one 'engine failure' on every single instructional trip you do.

[justmaybe]

Getting to grips with a single engine aircraft that has lost power is a critical part of both initial and recurrent training. Make sure your instructor has demonstrated and allowed you to fly the aircraft in terms of glide attitude (in different configs)
rather than concentrating primarily on IAS. Whether you are taught SLA or the 'square' pattern doesn't matter too much, as long as you adopt a consistent system that gets you consistently lined up on your landing site that allows a touchdown within the first 100m. In reality you will need lots of demo's and practise - this is not a one hour sortie and then move on to the next exercise, and it is also a measure of your instructors' ability and experience

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sorry BPF, but I reall do think that your 80% figure is much overstated.

Same here Genghis, BPF keeps using that claim about engine failures.

here is a copy.


1) 80 % of all engine failures are caused by the pilot with carb ice and fuel mismanagement/fuel exhaustion the biggest percentage. The best way to deal with engine failures is to not let the engine fail in the first place.

The statement as written in my opinion is difficult to believe.

[Big Pistons Forever]

None - and yes a lot of my flying is with Rotax 2-strokes, but only one of my total engine failures (the blocked fuel filter); the remainder are a mixture of Jabiru and Gypsy Major, the two partials are a Rotax 2-stroke (the fuel pump), and a certified Franklin 4-stroke (the unexplained). But I treat all single engine flying (which is virtually all of my flying) on the assumption that the engine may stop, and I'm sure you do as well.


One of us is mis-reading the reports somewhere, so I thought I'd have a look at the last half dozen AAIB bulletins:-

Air Accidents Investigation: April 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_2014.cfm)
BAe-146: engine fire on the ground
Islander: engine cowling came off due to poorly fastener
C150: Probably carb icing
TB10: Sudden stoppage, reasons unknown
TB10: Engine fire due faulty carb
RV9A: Stoppage downwind, probably either contaminated fuel or failed bolts.

Air Accidents Investigation: March 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/march_2014.cfm)
PA38: Mis-management of aircraft / use of unleaded / all sorts of problems

Air Accidents Investigation: February 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/february_2014.cfm)
Cassutt Racer: Used mixture instead of carb heat downwind
X'Air: Unknown

Air Accidents Investigation: January 2014 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/january_2014.cfm)
Beech 36: Possible birdstrike
AX2000: Reason unknown
Kolb: Prop shaft failure

Air Accidents Investigation: December 2013 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/december_2013.cfm)
A330: Turbine blade failure
CH601: Structural failure of propeller

Air Accidents Investigation: November 2013 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_2013.cfm)
G115: Mis-assembly of propellers
Piper Cub: Carb Ice
PA28: Incorrect fuel valve selection
P2002: Inconclusive, but possibly carb ice, plug fouling, or fuel starvation
Kolb Twinstar: Fuel starvation, maybe, reason for that unclear - possibly a fuel pump failure?
X'Air: Internal mechanical failure of the engine


So, some carb ice, and some mishandling, and some 2-stroke or uncertified engines. But all in a fairly small minority.

Sorry BPF, but I reall do think that your 80% figure is much overstated.

G

Genghis. I guess in retrospect I did not define what I meant very well. The 80 % figure was meant to apply to the original poster who was doing a PPL in a certified airplane. By the 80 % figure I meant that if you are flying behind a Continental or Lycoming engine in a SEP which applies to almost everyone who is training for the PPL and I would think to the majority of the PPL's reading this forum then yes I think if you look at the long term data you can conclude that about 80 % of the time a SEP has an engine failure and has to do a forced approach the pilots actions/inactions/neglect caused the engine to fail.

In fact if you look at the examples in your 6 Months worth of AAIB reports of engine failures in Continental/lycoming SEP's and divide them up it three categories of

1) 80 % ers failures caused by the pilot

2) 20 % ers failures which were not caused by the pilot or could have reasonable been foreseen by the pilot, and

3) Not enough information to definitively assign them to either group

you get


80 %

-C 150 (Contintental O 200) carb ice
-PA 38 ( Lycoming O 235) taking off in a clearly unairworthy aircraft
-Cassute racer (Contintental O 200) selecting the mixture control instead of carb heat
- Piper Cub (Lycoming O 320) carb ice
- Pa 28 (Lycoming 0 320) incorrect fuel selector setting

20 %

- Grob 115 ( Lycoming O 320) prop failure

and not sure

- TB 10 engine failed but no fault found in engine

- RV 6 engine failed due to either fuel contamination which would make it an 80 % or failed bolts which would make it a 20 %

So 5 definitive caused by the pilot and 1 where the pilot could not reasonably have prevented the failure. So even in this relatively small sample size a lot more engines failed because of the pilot, than not. If you analyse several years worth of data particularly using a large sample size like the US you get the same numbers, 80/20

The bottom line is a bit more care and attention on the part of the basics would mean there would have been several less wrecks in that 6 Month period.

The so what to me is that flight training is not doing enough to educate pilots on where, in the real world, pilots are screwing up and how to prevent it. So maybe instead of arcane discussion on what kind of crops are the best to force land on and an emphasis on following lengthy mnemonics on field selection, we should get back to the basics.

These are the things you need to pay attention to all the time so you don't cause the engine to fail and if the engine does fail these are the actions to use to get it back and then if you still have no power here is how to judge your glide so that the aircraft will get to a chosen touchdown point under good control.

Finally reading the full list of accidents for each month I see the same steady drip,drip,drip of "lost control on take/off landing". Pilots are not wrecking airplanes because they can't fly a perfect PFL they are wrecking aircraft because they can't takeoff or land :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Maybe we should spend more training time on that .......

[Big Pistons Forever]

Further to my last post.

I was very lucky because as a young PPL I often flew with a hugely experienced been there, done that retired professional pilot. His tips and advice were hugely valuable in furthering my competence as a pilot

I still remember my first flight. Shortly after we leveled off he covered the engine gauges and asked me where the needles were. UMMMM in the green I replied, yes but where exactly in the green was the response. I did not have a clue and his point was made. Knowing where the needle is pointing means if suddenly something changes you will know it and a sudden change in the important gauges, oil pressure, oil temp, fuel pressure, CHT; is never good.

The second lesson was furthering my understanding of how the airplane and its engine worked and therefore how to conduct quick and effective trouble shooting when bad things start happening.

In SEP's I have had one full failure ( Cessna 150 with a Continetal O 200 ) and one partial failure ( Cessna 172 with a Lycoming O320 )

Neither one resulted in a forced landing as a direct result of what I had learned above.

The total failure was in the flying school C 150 Aerobat. We were climbing out on a flight to the aerobatic box when I noticed that the oil pressure gauge was one needle width lower than it was always at. I told the student to immediately turn around and head for the airport. On the way back the oil pressure went to zero and on short final to the home airport runway, I shut down the engine which was now starting to shake. The oil pump drive gear had failed and the engine was ruined. If I had not being paying attention the engine would have failed in the aerobatic box which was in a heavily wooded area with out any very good places to land.

The partial failure occurred in cruise flight in a C 172. All of sudden the engine starting barking and shaking a with big drop in RPM. I immediately did the cause check so carb heat on, fuel on both quantity checked, mixture rich and mags on both. No change and given the symptoms I deduced an ignition problem. As soon as I switched to left mag only the engine instantly returned to normal. So I flew home adjusting my flight path to stay over landable areas and made an uneventful landing at my home airport. The cause was a failed gear in the right magneto which when it failed advanced the spark 2o degrees. The engine now had dueling spark plugs and it did not like it one bit.

So 2 forced landings prevented, not by skygodly powers, but by attention to the dials in flight and a bit of effort in understanding how the airplane works.....

[foxmoth]

BPF,
I think your point about partial failures is a good one, but the OP was having problems with the PFL itself which IS a requirement, the rest of it he was not asking about and should be taught anyway by his instructor - though I accept many instructors do not cover this as they should.

[Windrusher]

Lots of good points, giving lots of things to think about: just don't let them get in the way of maintaining attitude and airspeed, and flying/controlling the aeroplane until it's come to a halt. A stall/spin while fussing could really ruin your day.

Windrusher