CC. Dead right and in fact some years ago Mac Job the well known flight safety aviation writer made exactly the same point as you have - that is light twin engine safety is tied to cost.

Always an interesting subject.

It is rubbish to suggest that it is more kind to the engine by cutting the mixture, as maui does here:

The two methods of simulating the failure are in fact, almost identical (from the power loss point of view). Both rapidly deprive the engine of the heat energy that would be converted to mechanical energy. Following the loss of power, you have the situation that is referred to in numerous different ways by pilots, but which all mean exactly the same thing:

- "Windmilling"
- "Backdriving"
- "Backloading"
- "Negative torque"

Chimbu said:
Sadly, I have to agree with this. 8 children lost their fathers a few years ago at Jandakot because the pilot, having lost an engine just after takeoff, was in too much of a hurry to get the aircraft back onto the ground. The aircraft was maintaining height (albeit very low) at speeds around the blue line but a steepish turn when attempting to get back to the runway took the aircraft too far back on the power curve and a collision with the ground (and fireball) was the inevitable result.

The significance of NOT TURNING when assymetric is nowhere near emphasised enough. It should be hammered into multi pilots as much as the "don't turn back" message is hammered into single pilots for when they lose their engine just after takeoff.

On this point, the opinion of Chimbu was:
On VYSE: too many pilots have too much regard for this number when considering a multiengine takeoff. It is revered as an almost magical number that determines whether you will be able to fly or not. Too many pilots have the view that "if you lose one before blueline you won't climb".

That view is rubbish and pilots that hold it are firmly in the moron category that Chimbu referred to earlier. If you are one of them I ask you: what about VXSE? That speed is always less than VYSE (by almost 10 knots in the case of one type) and because of the relationship between these speeds, if you can climb at one, you will climb at the other - and if you can't climb at one, you won't be able to climb at the other.

Readers of this post may be interested to know that the blue line is NOT marked on the ASI to assist pilots in the EFATO case. When the FAA mandated the blue line in the early 60's it was for the case where the aircraft lost one in the cruise.

Centaurus is right on with this comment about blue line:
Finally, hands up all those whose drill, following an engine failure after takeoff with flaps extended, is to retract the flaps immediately after retracting the gear? (As part of the drill, in other words).

If you put your hand up then I suggest you read the manufacturers instructions re engine failures after takeoff - you may find that the POH stipulates that you leave the flaps alone - until reaching a "safe height".

The POH for a Cessna 400 series type stipulates exactly this - but how many of us have been trained to follow the "mixture up, pitch up, power up, gear up, flaps up" drill?

APMR
 

I don't have a Seminole POH, do you know off hand if the drill for EFATO is also Pitch Power gear flap or does it's POH state that flaps be left till a safe height? What is a safe height?

From the Beechcraft Baron 58 POH P/N 58-590000-39 Issue Oct 1984 revised October 1990.

Page 3-5.

ENGINE FAILURE AFTER LIFT-OFF AND IN FLIGHT.

1. Landing Gear and Flaps - UP
2. Throttle (inoperative engine) -CLOSED
3. Propeller (inoperative engine) - FEATHER
4. Power (operative engine) - AS REQUIRED
5. Airspeed - MAINTAIN SPEED AT ENGINE FAILURE (100 kts MAX) until OBSTACLES ARE CLEARED

...checklist then goes on to talk about securing failed engine.

Interesting that the manufacturer advocates flap up at step 1 but does not talk about clearing obstacles and increasing speed until step 5.

The "five ups" are not perfect but they work most of the time.

cc said

and

i must respectfully disagree. IMHO you should fly at Vy (Vx for obstacle clearance if necessary). that provides the highest altitude should you suffer an engine failure. you must remember that drag is proportional to the square of the airspeed so the higher the speed, the quicker you will slow down anyway. much better to be at 400' at 85kts then 250' at 100kts in something like a duchess when the engine stops.

RAAF procedures are as i describe and it certainly is the beechcraft recommendation.

Piper recommend this for the Seminole too I think. However, I teach to climb at an attitude corresponding to the more conventional Vyse+10kts or so, because that is the same attitude as a Vyse climb on one engine. That is, there's no significant attitude change required if an engine fails.

If I have an obstacle to clear, then I will maintain Vy or Vx until a safe height, as per manufacturer's recommendation. But I specifically remind myself that I'll need to lower the nose dramatically in the event of an EF. This will also necessitate turning early or landing ahead because I won't clear the obstacle. Not a "normal" take-off (for me at least!)

I too am interested in whether it damages the engine to apply mixture ICO -> fully rich with the throttle open. It's a pity no-one seems to know.

Thanks to all the very experienced pilots who have made posts here - CC & Centaurus among others. I (we?) have appreciated your taking time to pass on your knowledge.

okats8, if you fly a single, do you climb at the gliding attitude so there won't be a pitch change if you suffer an engine failure? :p

airspeed is life but altitude is life insurance....

wdn Vy and Vx are certification speeds (test pilot territory) not really applicable in day to day flying. They were speeds born of some certification requirement and have, like so many things in aviation, taken on a life of their own.

Think about it. A 50' obstacle exactly at the end of the TODA.

Think also about how low 50' is.

You'll be above 50' before the gear is up.

And yet we see pilot after pilot climbing away at Vy to some truly stupid altitudes...500'-1000' or even cruise altitude as often as not...cruise climb seems to be a mystery to many pilots.

It is, in my view, negatively reinforced by the diagrams you see depicting Vy/Vx in sundry publications. Usually a picture of a cessna standing on it's tail climbing over a tree....the scale errors of the diagram make it look like the tree is actually several hundred feet high and that, I suspect, is the psycological factor which starts pilots climbing at Vy to such completely stupid altitudes.

In my Bonanza Vy is 93 kts. Glide speed in the landing config is 90kts and glide speed clean is 110kts. At 93 kts the nose is hauled up so high that the view ahead is severely compromised. If you lose an engine in that attitude you'll be below 90ts in a heart beat and have to lower the nose dramatically in an attempt to get it back let alone 110kts. At an altitude of say 100' you will merely develope a very high rate of descent without the time to recover speed and its attendant manouever capability. You will then be faced with the ground arriving to smite thee in the face at some horrifying rate and a almost guaranteed very heavy arrival.

In a twin many of the same considerations apply but for slightly modified reasons. If you are climbing away in a typical piston twin at Vy in an effort to get lots of altitude 'quickly' in case of engine failure and you actually lose an engine you will need LOTS of rudder to control the yaw and need to lower the attitude dramatically to;

1/. stop further speed decay,

2/. regain a speed which will allow you to climb/maintain height while you sort !!!! out.

Given the extremely high oh !!!!!!! factor in typical real engine failures this is beyond the capabilities of many pilots and, in my view, is exactly how Vmca loss of control accidents happen.

In my Bonanza I get airborne, gear up, gently climb/accelerate to 110Kt asap. If I lose the engine at any point I need only to lower the nose slightly to maintain speed and look for something soft to hit. Once I actually have 110Kts the aeroplane is truly manoueverable and can look at turning left or right slightly for better opportunities if they exist. At 110kts my wing really comes alive and I get initial climb rates of 1000'/min at 110-120kts...with nice cool CHTs as well:ok:

The same applied when I used to fly Barons etc. Accelerate in a gentle climb looking for that cruise climb 'sweet spot' and if you lose an engine you have a nice buffer above Vyse (and that may not be the blue radial painted on the ASI. Control initial yaw with rudder (you'll need a lot less at the higher IAS) gently lower the nose a small amount to maintain speed and carryout the recall items- mixture/pitch/power up, wheel ups/flaps up/ identify, verify, feather, fuel.

I have yet to see an airport/airstrip in my career that required Vy/Vx

Editted for spooling...again.:ok:

Yeah. Wot he said. :ok:

In my reading of accident reports, most fatalities arising from EFATO in a light twin were completely avoidable. For example - struggling to gain height at Vxse or Vyse, then hitting a hill? Very rare scenario. Another example - aircraft committed to a forced landing, pilot closes both throttles before touchdown? Again, very rarely fatalities from this scenario.

What I have read many cases of, is pilots maintaining an excessive pitch attitude when asymmetric, with a quick speed decay to below their personal Vmc. That almost always results in multiple fatalities. I have seen intelligent and current students do it in training, and had to take over control. Why do people do it? Without having experienced a real EF, I agree it's the "oh bugger" factor, coupled with a psychologically overwhelming desire to climb away at something that looks "normal".

While I agree with your airspeed - life axiom, I consider that there are statistically safer ways to fly a light twin where terrain is not limiting.