Engine failure @ night (SE)

[Holdposition]

Engine failure @ night (SE)

Apologies if this has been done before, here’s the scenario......200 hour ppl with night qualification, in club aircraft (pa28/172 etc) on a local flight @ night, one friend on board non-pilot. Complete engine failure with no chance of restart @ 4000ft altitude, he knows the area is mainly rural with a large town about 5 miles north and a motorway 2 miles to the east of position. Obviously mainly dark on ground below apart from the odd house and road lit. He is about 25 miles north of airfield but in radio contact with them still, weather is sky clear with 30k+ visibility. What should he do and what would you do! ( answers that include pray and switch the landing light off are not allowed:)

Please assume that is is in the U.K.

Had this conversation at club very recent and would like the views of one and all, many thanks.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Hmm, is this a trick question? OK, well I'll be the fall guy -- obviously land on motorway with flow of traffic, assuming it's not too congested, relate heroic tale in humble manner to nightly news, sell story to weekend redtop: MY HEROIC DEATH DIVE!

Oh yeah, then have quiet word with mechanic who recently serviced aircraft.

QDM

[Tinstaafl]

Too little information.

Is there a full moon & clear sky? If so it's often possible to see the surface, even enough to have a good shot at doing a PFL as you get closer to the ground. Make sure your cockpit lights are very low or even off though!

Also: Are there any bodies of water lying between you & the moon? These will be visible courtesy of their light reflection. An open body of water can be a reasonable option compared to crashing into trees, buildings or rough ground/hills/mountains.

Are there any airstrips nearby with PAL? If so activating any around may give you the option of a PFL/glide approach.

Similarly, what about a beach withing glide range?

Is there a cloud layer between you & the surface? If so, how much room is there below?

How much traffic is there on roads? Land with the traffic if you can, against if that direction has significantly light traffic.

What is your local knowledge about the area? Is it generally farmland? Ploughed fields? Stock paddocks? Are you familiar with any particular lights that can be used as a landmark to guide you towards a known clear area?

Bear in mind that all these things should be being constantly assessed throughout the flight and not wait for the unhappy moment!

What was your pre-flight planning like? Did you plan a 'good choice' nav route ie one that has reasonable forced landing options?

Having considered (or pre-considered ;) ) all of that, what speed are you using for your glide?

Unless you're gliding to reach a specific place then Vg isn't necessarily the best option. Have you considered minimum sink speed? For typical light piston a/c this is reasonably close to Vx. It will give you more time in the air to plan and mean that you will hit the ground with less energy to expend, in the absence of alternative plans.

:eek:

[Timothy]

HoldPosition

I am sorry but I cannot go along with the land on the road bit.

If you take the risk of flying an SEP at night so be it....your life, your choice. I assume that you have explained the risk to your passenger.

But please don't risk the lives of a coachload of innocent children who have made no such choice. You could cause a multi pile up with many deaths.

Take responsibility for your own risk-taking decisions and try and minimise risk to people on the ground.

Your widow will then have newspaper headlines to be proud of. ;)

W

[FlyingForFun]

There was a very similar discussion here, although it was quite a long time ago. It went on for a very long time and got quite heated! One of the conclusions, though, was that it would vary certainly depending on the country, and possible the area within the country, particularly with regard to the road option.

For example, the the US there are many very long, straight roads which maybe see a couple of cars a day - they would be good landing sites. On the other hand, the M25 wouldn't. Since the original poster specified the UK, I'd suggest that a road isn't an option - in those parts of the UK where roads are quiet enough to consider, they're usually not straight enough to be worth considering.

FFF
-------------

[QDMQDMQDM]

I'd suggest that a road isn't an option - in those parts of the UK where roads are quiet enough to consider, they're usually not straight enough to be worth considering

I'd probably have a go at the M5 after nine at night.

Ah, the joys of armchair speculation on dangerous circumstances!

QDM

[2Donkeys]

After the interesting discussions on the "Go-Around after Engine Failure in MEPs" debate, it is good to find myself on the same side of the discussion as the esteemed Mr WCollins.

Certain things we do in SEPs carry a significant risk. Flying above a low cloud base would be one. Flying at night would be another. Unless you are fortunate enough to pick a well-lit night and the right area for the problem to occur in, your best bet is normally reckoned to be to aim at a dark bit. Nobody has yet quoted the bit about turning on your landing light at 200 feet, and if you don't like what you see, turning it off again - It can only be a matter of time ;)

Nobody has yet mentioned the presence of copious lighting standards, fences and power lines close to motorways and main roads. All strong counter-arguments, to the "land on the M1" argument.

Finally, engine failures in pistons are more common than one might hope. A surprisingly large number of these are caused by pilot-related problems.

Add these thoughts together, and a PPL of typical currency in a rented aircraft at night is a bad combination. Fortunately, the average PPL SEP renter does so few night hours in their career that accidents of this sort are still a rarity.

[khorne]

It may not always be possible but the best idea is to try to fly so high as to stand a fair chance of gliding to an airfield. With a GPS you can get directly over an airfield without even being able to see it, or even if above cloud. A route like this is fairly easy if passing at a fair height across central and southern England.

Landing at a closed airfield in the dark is difficult but not impossible and you are less likely to hit wires or building than if you aim for any old field. I have done this myself and found it quite straightforward but the hands do sweat a bit. In the flare you can judge the height well enough to have a (hard) landing if you look out of the side window.

If you are unlucky enough to be flying too far from an airfield (although you do make your own luck to some extent) then I am certain that a well lit area is best. If you land in a controlled manner and then hit something then at least you will be found quickly which is what will make the difference.

[skua]

slightly off-topic but...

I remember my instructor for my multi rating (in the US) told me how he had brought off a forced landing at night in a SE. He had been doing a regular mail run in a PA28 (can't have been many letters!), when he had the engine failure. He put it down in a supermarket carpark, without a scratch. Obviously luck was involved, but no doubt a lot of skill.

Such car parks may not be quite so large in this country, but they are worth a thought - they usually have some lighting.

[slim_slag]

2donkeys

Reminds me of one of the many words of wisdom in this game "You should fly at night a lot, or not at all".

If the moon is out you can see surprisingly well. If it's dark out there you are pretty much trusting to fate. Kinetic energy is a function of velocity squared, so keep as slow as you safely can. If you hit something, hope it is made of a material that causes the forces to be managable by your flesh and blood. You can survive quite a few g if you do it right.

[dublinpilot]

I haven't yet done a night rating, and read with interest everyones opinion on this.

I am curious, leaving aside evryones opinion, what is generally the advise received from instructors for this? and do you do any sort of pfl training at night? I know this would be very dangerous at a low level due to unlight obstructions, but surely there is some form of training for it?

Personally getting as low as you can, and if you see trees ahead where you were hoping would be a big field, and you've too little altitude left to do much about it, an intentional stall would seem like a good idea to me. Use up as much energy as possible. Would that be fool hardy?

[slim_slag]

dublinpilot

The problem with a stall is timing it right, as all you could end up doing is convert a lot of your horizontal speed to vertical speed. These light aircraft are better at handling and dissipating forces in the horizontal direction than the vertical, as is the human body when seated. You also still have horizontal speed in a stall.

There is a theory that if you are over a forest with an engine out, you should stall just above the tree tops and gently drop in. The other theory is that you should aim between two trees just abve the ground and let the wings take the force of impact, dissipating the forces as they get ripped off. Haven't seen many trials to provide any evidence of which is better, but I'd go for the latter. Aiming for flimsy walls is also said to be a good thing, if you can come to zero speed over a few tens of feet you should survive. Put some numbers into those Newtonian equations we all learned for O level physics and you can prove the point theoretically.

[FlyingForFun]

Another (type-dependant) problem with stalls is that they can go wrong. Ok, so a PA28 is unlikely to bite you in the stall... but the Europa can be vicious if you don't have enough left rudder to account for the lack of prop-wash.... don't ask me how I know that!

As for what instructors teach... well, I wasn't taught anything. I was flying over suburban metropolitan Phoenix at night at 1000' agl when I did my night qualification, with nowhere to land except for a couple of dark areas that marked parks - not that I'm recommending that, just saying it's what I did. Don't know about instructors other than mine, but I'd guess that if they teach anything, it'll depend on where you're located, as we've already discussed. As for doing PFLs at night, I definitely wouldn't want to do this - don't know if any instructors routinely teach it or not, but I'd be surprised. All it takes is one power line which you didn't see.....

FFF
-------------

[bluskis]

The only thing to do would be to fly the aircraft all the way to whatever arrival awaits.

If it was me I would probably head for the road like a moth to a candle. As a single should land somewhere about 65-75 mph, I would be pretty much cordinated with any traffic, and hoping not too many heart attacks occour in the cars you have surprised, I would hope a bit of emergency braking would save the night.

That still leaves two problems, if the road is busy the above is out the window, and even if it is not, there are the lamposts, signposts and curves to worry about.

If you have to fly at night perhaps it makes sense to rent a twin for the occasion.

[pholooh]

I've heard that a quite few of pilots on the otherside of the atlantic do not SEP @ night withou a parachute. I dont know how true this is. Do any pilots in the UK do the same

[ratsarrse]

Please feel free to discount my opinion as a novice, but I suspect that I would feel inclined to head for a bit of lit road. Whatever the accepted wisdom may be, given a choice between a dark patch where you can't see anything at all and a lit patch where there are obstructions I think I'd head for the light (;) ) - at least you might stand a chance of avoiding the obstructions and some choice as to which objects you hit. A plane making a forced landing on the M1 couldn't be much worse than some of the atrocious driving you see on a daily basis...

[Tinstaafl]

I used to teach PFLs at night. I also included glide approaches, flapless, complete electrical failure etc., same as for day.

Who says PFLs have to be taught over a paddock? Nothing wrong with a conveniently lit airfield - especially if there's little or no traffic.

[FlyingForFun]

Tinstaafl, very good point, something I hadn't thought of!

FFF
-------------

[Hornetboy]

Recently received Night Rating here. We trained in electrical failures, flapless, but no PFL's. Seem to recall it was suggested to land somewhere just outside cities, hoping to get some light yet not too much civilization.

Of course in Oz there's a whole lot of spots where there's no civilization. Aiming for water is another one I've heard. And of course the good old "Aim for black spots"....not a personal favourite.

This is also a novice opinion, but number 1 option is roads for me. I've noticed a fair few roads between cities/townships that are lit up well enough. At the altitudes we fly at for night ops, there's a reasonable chance of gliding towards one of these roads, usually not too busy for the most part of night. Bonus is that touchdown at 45-50kts is below 100kph usual speed limit for these roads, so we won't be overtaking any law abiding citizens, and those cars behind can hopefully notice the flashing and rotating white and red lights on the aircraft somehow...

....perhaps an early line-up with the road to avoid powerlines on the sides, and approaching with a good speed for plenty of time to flatten the approach and give cars a bit of time to spot ya, plus as a safety factor in case you decide to abort and land beside the road at the last minute.

Of course this is all rather inexperienced speculation from a newbie NVFR, and I understand that ground logic and cockpit reality don't always equate. Never really thought that much about it before this. Always assumed it would be a no-hoper situation, and a risk you'd just have to take as part of flying. Ignorance is bliss :-)

[pondlife]

For those of you who have qualified your speculation by saying that yuo are inexperienced, I'd like to point out that almost all of us are unexperienced at engine failures at night (luckily) regardless of how experienced we might be at flying with the engine running.
I think that your speculation is just as valid as anyone elses - and none of it is particularly valid without an experience to back it up.

[What a Loop]

I did my night rating here in the UK and was told the similar story to most of the points above i.e. head for the dark patch , water, or nearby a city, but to try and avoid landing on the roads.

Conversely when I was in the US last year I did some night flying and took an instructor as it had been a while since I had done any and yes to be honest I didn't want to get lost. But he was adamant that you should head for a road/highway and wouldn't teach anything else, within the bounds of safety of course.

It was interesting the different opinions on opposite sides of the Pond.

Mind you this week I am in Finland and its -25c:eek: :eek: . Good things is there are plenty of lakes to land on.:eek: :eek: :D

[Final 3 Greens]

Pondlife

I would set up best glide speed, do my best and hope to survive the subsequent bang, since your scenario is pretty grim.

Strangely enough I am night rated and just over 200 hrs and my risk assessemnt of an engine failure flying after dark in a SEP is Probability: Low, Severity: Likely to be fatal.

Thus, it's my choice to fly at night in SEP only in a tight circuit to stay current and to restrict my use of the night rating to stay legal when flying around the dusk period.

Night flying is one instance where I believe that MEPs are inherently safer due to the inability to pick a field with any reasonable degree of certainty. Even if blue line speed means a slight descent, it does buy time to consider how to get to an open airfield.

The other factor often overlooked in night flying is that you can become disoriented by optical illusions thus leading to poordecision making and even may worse end up over an area where there is no visible horizon thus requiring instrument flight - hardly ideal when you are looking for a forced landing site.

[david viewing]

Chaps, It's not hopeless! I think a lot of the fatalism expressed here could make matters worse if PPL's reading this thread decide that night engine failure = certain death. It doesn't.

For instance, friend of mine, Cessna, didn't like the price of petrol at big airport so set off home without it. Engine stopped. Aimed for the dark bit, landed without damage in field. Rang for fuel in cans, nearly got away undetected as dawn broke and farmer called police.

Don't get me wrong on this - I'm not advocating taking chances at night and 45 min reserve is a good rule in an aeroplane you know well - more in anything else.

I think the issues here exactly mirror the ditching debate - what counts is a good positive attitude to what is generally a survivable situation. Fly the Aeroplane! Most CFIT are survivable at minmium speed, while many stalls and most spins are not.

BTW, more thoughtful US instructors of my acquaintance advocate landing beside the road, not on it. Many collisions with cars have been fatal and there is less chance of hitting signs, etc., while you are still likely to be noticed by passing traffic.

[Final 3 Greens]

night engine failure = certain death. It doesn't.

Quite right, but nightfall brings with it a huge shift in the odds from daylight.

I'm pleased that your friend survived to fight another day, but landing into a completely dark area is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette in my opinion- you might arrive in a lake, quarry, a field covered in electricity pylons, or obstructed with trees, a stone wall half way across your roll out etc.

I'd argue that once your engine fails at night, the quality of your decision making is greatly degraded compared to daytime, since you simply cannot pick a field in the same way.

If you had said that the probability of engine failure was so low that this makes night flying a decent proposition, so go for it, I would have a lot of sympathy with that perspective since we all have individual views on risk - e.g. some motor cyclists (e.g. UK, Germany) spend a lot of moeny on protective gear, whereas their counterparts in some other countries do not - and I am sure that both groups reckon the risk is acceptable.

[Tinstaafl]

posted 10th January 2003 18:38



People keep mentionin the darkness as if it's absolute.

It's not. With the cockpit lights turned as low as possible - even off, if there is sufficient brightness to give a reasonable horizon - you would be surprised just how much can be seen.

As height diminishes, what seemed quite black at altitude often resolves into discernable fields, buildings, roads etc.

For coal-sack blackness and you have no option other than to glide while pointing 'somewhere', then use your brains.

Best glide speed is not the best choice. Use min. sink speed, it's slower - forwards & downwards - AND gives you more time in the air to find a better solution. What if it's just a matter of some (slight) additional time that was needed for air in the fuel lines to be replaced by fuel after your tank change?

Make the 'somewhere' you point count for something ie glide towards known low ground (gives more time in the air), glide towards a known flat(ish) area, towards somewhere that will make help easier to get to you etc etc.

Above all, DON'T give up until you're dead...

[Final 3 Greens]

Tinstaafl

What you say makes a lot of sense, especially if you are in a local area you know (where heading to known low groudn will be more intuitive), rather than enroute somewhere for the first time.

My risk perspective is based on a view that the probability of making a successful forced landing at night is too low to make the risk acceptable personally, but many pilots fly high hours at night without experiencing an engine failure and may think that I am being over cautious.

Choice is a wonderful thing, isn't it and I wouldn't ever try to impose my values on others in this context.

PS with regard to achieving a restart, the original post said "Complete engine failure with no chance of restart ", so my replies were based on being committed to a focred landing. The possibility of a restart would make me feel a whole lot better about things ;)

[matspart3]

Interesting posts but what is the likelihood? How many "complete engine failures with no chance of a restart" are there? Has anyone ever calculated a probability of failure based on worldwide statistics? You could then halve that figure to split between day/night then halve it again to account for the fact that most of us are in the pub for last orders!!
In ten years of ATCOing at a busy GA unit, I've only ever encounterd 2 'complete engine failures' and we've handled about 800 000 movements during that period.
IMHO the most dangerous part of SEP night flying is driving to the Airport

[slim_slag]

matspart,

It would be hard to argue with your conclusion given your experience. What I tell people is that flying little planes is safer than riding a motorbike but a bit more dangerous than driving a car, then I hope they don't ask how I worked that out :D I just renewed an insurance policy and they loaded it 75% for flying little planes, which I don't understand, but at least they insured me! Riding motorbikes was OK. I would rather fly a SEP plane at night than ride a motorbike in London, and it's not even a close - but I ride a motorbike in London.

Night flying certainly has human factor challenges but the engine doesn't really know what the ambient lighting is. I'd say disorientation is the biggest additional risk factor, which is a human problem. One of the old chesnut sayings is that engines do know they are flying at night, as auto-rough goes ON. :D

Oh, pholooh - I don't know any pilot who wears a parachute unless they are flying aerobatics, and even then some don't. Aerobatics at night would be more than a tad foolish.

[Final 3 Greens]

Matspart3

100% or engines failures where the engine wouldn't start again were found to be in this category :D Seriously, I don't think you could assemble a homogenous enough sample for the probability to be too meaningful.

Night SEP flying is very safe unless you are one of the very small number of people who has a big problem - I remember a C172 going into the Forth in darkness a few years ago, can't think of one in the news since.

So if you play the probability game, it's likely to be small, but the impact is potentially very severe - so what is the total systemic risk? Most likely a matter of opinion.

Classic risk management offers 4 options - (a) avoidance (b) mitigation (c) acceptance and (d) transference to a 3rd party.

Assuming that (d) is not viable here, you can choose not to fly at night (a), fly near the airfield as I do or some other action (b) or (c) take the view that it won't happen to you - looking at the small instance of incidents this is a serious option.

I haven't got the numbers to hand, but I read a report last year that asserted that GA flying is much more hazardous than driving per se and demonstrated that it is airline ops which are mcuh safer.

Cheers

F3G

[bluskis]

Anyone interested enough in engine failure probability should refer to the thread on 'go round after an engine failure' where exactly the same topic is discussed in its last few pages.

[Tinstaafl]

Hiya Final3G,

What I said is just as applicable to en-route flying over relatively unknown areas. That's what the topo. chart on which we draw tracks & mark fixes is for.

I say 'relatively' unknown because the chart removes some of that 'unknown' ;)

Even in mountainous areas you still have some idea of where the low(er) ground is likely to be.

[Final 3 Greens]

Tinstaafl

I agree that your approach would be just as applicable at a theoretical level, in reality I'd argue that you'd be more likely to deal well with your local area more easily since your sensing capability would use unconscious observations to help you orient yourself - but no big deal, I don't see that there's much of a valuable discussion here, as it could develop into paring a hair! - I agree that the correct use of a chart would certainly remove some of the unkowns.

I am looking at the engine failure at night scenario from a POV of dealing with a future risk, whereas you are working on how to deal with an actual problem that has developed.

This means that my initial decision is to choose mitigation and fly close to an airfield on the basis that this LIKELY mitigates most of the risk of an engine failure as a forced landing has a reasonable probability of being successful.

From your postings, I infer (and please correct me if this is a false view) that you will make an acceptance decision based on what you view as a small probability of engine failure and your ability to manage the subsequent outcome.

So standing back from the discussion, we are both making highly rational decisions based on an assessment of our relative capability as pilots and tactics available to us. I am certainly not saying that you are wrong, only that your decision making process produces a different result to mine.

I do a lot of project oriented work, where risk evaluation is axiomatic to the results and am very used to this sort of debate - it's very interesting to watch similar project teams, on virtually identical endeavours, draw quite varying conclusions - and frankly, since these teams are dealing with a future event that has a varying probability of never happening, it's always difficult to take a firm view on "who's right" - it really is a subjective matter of opinion usually. That I can handle - what freaks me out is when something we never considered hits us between the eyes!

Safe flying :)

[Tinstaafl]

Quite right, I think, Final3G. Local knowledge always makes a difference. How much is variable, depending on a huge range of factors & 'what ifs'.

I also agree that it's a matter of risk mitigation. Here too, planning & how one operates is subject to rather a large number of variables.

Only the pilot & his/her hopefully informed passengers can decide what is acceptable for themselves.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Desision making:

I had planned to ignore this subject of engine failure at night but decided to share my personal rules regarding flight safety considerations.

I have three rules I do not break.

( 1 ) I do not fly single engine aircraft beyond gliding distance of land.

( 2 ) I do not fly single engine aircraft in IMC nor do I fly single engine aircraft outside the aerodrome circuit at night.

( 3 ) I do not fly multi engine aircraft IMC single pilot.

Please note,, after fifty years flying many, many different aircraft fixed and rotary wing for about thirty thousand hours and having experienced just about every conceivable failure of engines and equipment both piston and turbine one could imagine I made these decisions years ago based on the math that if I keep flying in risk areas that I do not have to fly, eventually the odds would run out.

Please note:::

These rules are my own personal decision and I do not mean that others need adopt same. :) :)

Just thought I would post this for you to mull over.

Chuck E....

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[FlyingForFun]

Chuck,

Could you please clarify - those 3 rules, are they for night-flying only, or do they apply to all your flying?

If they are for night-flying, then I'm confused by rule 1 - surely ditching at night is hardly any more dangerous than ditching during the day? Unlike over land, where you may have hidden power cables, buildings, fences or anything else to contend with at night, the only difference between a night ditching and a daytime ditching that I can see would be judging your height over a near-invisible body of water.... which hopefully your landing light would help with?

If I've misunderstood, and you apply those rules during the daytime too, then please ignore my question!

FFF
--------------

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sure no problem:

#1............ I do not fly single engine wheels over water at any time, it is my opinion that the survivalibality of a water landing is to risky.

#2........... I do not want an engine failure in any situation where I can not see where I am going to impact the earth.

#3........... It is my own opinion that if an airplane has two or more engines, two or more sets of radios and nav aids it also stands to reason there should be two pilots to out think the thing. :D

Nothing fancy or mystical about my rules, just common sense, to me. :D

Cat Driver:

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[Taildragger]

Flying at night makes you a better Pilot (If the weather is reasonable) Navigationally, all the clutter is eliminated and the major features stand out clearly. The engine failure feature (Which is faced in daylight also) just means you can't see where to land, without obstacles, but it's a fair bet that if the area is black, there are no habitations with lights on. Nobody can guarantee trees though, so you must use that landing light, which my old instructor told me to swich off immediately you saw something you didn't like.!!
What is certain, you are not in a good position, but you will be far to busy to feel frightened so get to that dark spot.
The euphoria after a clear night cross country equals fantastic sex. Can't rememebr that either.

[FlyingForFun]

Thanks Chuck.

FFF
--------------

[Final 3 Greens]

Taildragger

Can you remember a time when sex was safe and light aeroplanes dangerous?

Methinks you are trying to recapture the excitement of your youth :D :D :D :D :D

[SteveR]

I know this was originally about forced landings at night, but enough people have broadened it out to general risk assessment of night flying. So I'd like to point out that the chances of an mid-air-collision seem to be much lower at night:
1. There are fewer people up (the sky is even bigger)
2. They'll (99.9999% of the time) have their lights on, so you'll see 'em sooner.

For me this kinda balances the FL problem, so (when I get the qualification), I'll do Xcountries at night. I will however extend the passenger brief to attempt to inform them better.

Steve R

[Final 3 Greens]

SteveR

You might wish to consider splitting the sky into quadrants at night and scanning all of them, almost mechanically.

This is to ensure that you don't fixate one point and 'lose' something in the blind spot where the optical nerve exits your eye.

This obviously applies in daylight too, but it's easy to get a little 'lazy' at night due to the ease of picking up strobes and other lights which, as you rightly say, do stand out.