EFATO, to turn or not to turn.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Bugger.......... Now I am at a loss for words.
Bose
Quote:
If you also take the time to read my comments on EFATO
Are you having a really bad day? I was COMPLETELY agreeing with you (for once ).
Quote:
but rather that I would not have shut Gatwick down and chosen one of the other more suitable options like Redhill or Biggin Hill
.. .. .. this is part of the problem on Flyer and a trap, if set, all to easy to fall into. We judge the actions of others based on our own perception, often without knowing the circumstances. Some of those Sky Gods advocating a turn back might do so safetly but they are applying their own skill set to others, or to circumstances of which they have no knowledge.
Quote:
If you also take the time to read my comments on EFATO
Are you having a really bad day? I was COMPLETELY agreeing with you (for once ).
Quote:
but rather that I would not have shut Gatwick down and chosen one of the other more suitable options like Redhill or Biggin Hill
.. .. .. this is part of the problem on Flyer and a trap, if set, all to easy to fall into. We judge the actions of others based on our own perception, often without knowing the circumstances. Some of those Sky Gods advocating a turn back might do so safetly but they are applying their own skill set to others, or to circumstances of which they have no knowledge.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
Just a note to agree with the misconception of high bank angle/rate of descent issue.
I was taught MINIMUM 30 degrees bank on final turn in a glider. Reason? You don't stall off high bank angle turns because this requires that you pull harder on the stick. What you get is a high rate of descent as it slips in to the descent and the recovery from this is to reduce the bank angle.
The turn back is of course a high workload manoeuvre and I don't seem to remember having seen what I believe was an RAF procedure. Nose down, 45 degrees bank, pull to the buffet.
The reason for the success of this method is that the height loss is lower because of the reduced length of time in the turn.
It is possible to stay very current on 20 hours a year. But not by flying straight and level.
I was taught MINIMUM 30 degrees bank on final turn in a glider. Reason? You don't stall off high bank angle turns because this requires that you pull harder on the stick. What you get is a high rate of descent as it slips in to the descent and the recovery from this is to reduce the bank angle.
The turn back is of course a high workload manoeuvre and I don't seem to remember having seen what I believe was an RAF procedure. Nose down, 45 degrees bank, pull to the buffet.
The reason for the success of this method is that the height loss is lower because of the reduced length of time in the turn.
It is possible to stay very current on 20 hours a year. But not by flying straight and level.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
I can confirm from experience that a first-generation Alfa Romeo 145, with the flat-four 1.4 engine and two distribution belts, can continue running on two cylinders
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: UK
if you start increasing your stall speed by putting on medium to large angles of bank you are going to spin it into the ground;
Hence my point is that the temptation is then to raise the nose which reduces the airspeed which then brings the actual airspeed and the stall speed together resulting in a spin and loss of control close to the ground.
Its your airspeed that will keep you alive !!!
Also - taken from the AAIB website which it states is contained in many aircraft POH and flight training manuals:
‘At low altitudes with a
failed engine, turns should not be attempted,
except for slight and gentle deviations to avoid
obstacles. A controlled crash landing straight
ahead is preferable to risking a stall which
could result in an uncontrolled roll and crash
out of a turn.’
failed engine, turns should not be attempted,
except for slight and gentle deviations to avoid
obstacles. A controlled crash landing straight
ahead is preferable to risking a stall which
could result in an uncontrolled roll and crash
out of a turn.’
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
From: Londonish
OK, first up, IN NO WAY AM I ADVOCATING THE TURNBACK.
Just so we're clear
However, as far as I am concerned, there are a couple of 'misconceptions' in the statement "if you start increasing your stall speed by putting on medium to large angles of bank you are going to spin it into the ground"
1) A stall in a turn does not necessarily equal a spin - not if the aircraft is properly balanced.
2) let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.
That said, I'm nitpicking the statement rather than the sentiment. Sorry! As has been said many times - if in doubt - don't.
I'm no sky god, but I firmly believe the turnback will most likely kill you, especially if you're not intimately familiar with throwing the plane around, and it's performance in those attitudes. The issue is really the height you will need to make that turn - whether you hit the ground as a result of a spin or in a major turn is probably largely irrelevant to the outcome. The cause is not having enough room for the turn.
Just so we're clear
However, as far as I am concerned, there are a couple of 'misconceptions' in the statement "if you start increasing your stall speed by putting on medium to large angles of bank you are going to spin it into the ground"1) A stall in a turn does not necessarily equal a spin - not if the aircraft is properly balanced.
2) let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.
That said, I'm nitpicking the statement rather than the sentiment. Sorry! As has been said many times - if in doubt - don't.
I'm no sky god, but I firmly believe the turnback will most likely kill you, especially if you're not intimately familiar with throwing the plane around, and it's performance in those attitudes. The issue is really the height you will need to make that turn - whether you hit the ground as a result of a spin or in a major turn is probably largely irrelevant to the outcome. The cause is not having enough room for the turn.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At what height does the definition of 'EFATO' cease to apply and the definition of a 'forced landing without power' kick in?
Because I believe that there is a concensus on the thread that the majority of pilots would better landing straight ahead +/-30 degrees after EFATO.
Bob Hoover level skilled people and those trained to do so (with capable kit) excepted.
And assuming that straight ahead/ +- 30 degrees did not in itself involve a higher probability of disaster than turning back.
So what's the definition? 800', 1000'? or is it type specific?
Because I believe that there is a concensus on the thread that the majority of pilots would better landing straight ahead +/-30 degrees after EFATO.
Bob Hoover level skilled people and those trained to do so (with capable kit) excepted.
And assuming that straight ahead/ +- 30 degrees did not in itself involve a higher probability of disaster than turning back.
So what's the definition? 800', 1000'? or is it type specific?
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Europe
turboj - Suggest you go fly it (at a safe height ) and see what height your aircraft needs for a turnback with 45 degrees of bank and maintaining glide speed.
Practice it for novelty factor if you like but please understand that if in balance and sufficiently high you are not going to drop out of the sky just because you crank into a large bank. Just lower the nose promptly to maintain safe airspeed and then turn using a decent bank.
If you are an instructor you should get your head around this so that you are able to inform your students. I agree that this is not for low time pilots who don't practice it and also if options exist ahead then not needed.
Bit of a cultural element to this as UK has always mandated NEVER turn back (one size fits all) whereas other countries advise to practice for those situations where straight ahead is not an option (and height is sufficient).
Practice it for novelty factor if you like but please understand that if in balance and sufficiently high you are not going to drop out of the sky just because you crank into a large bank. Just lower the nose promptly to maintain safe airspeed and then turn using a decent bank.
If you are an instructor you should get your head around this so that you are able to inform your students. I agree that this is not for low time pilots who don't practice it and also if options exist ahead then not needed.
Bit of a cultural element to this as UK has always mandated NEVER turn back (one size fits all) whereas other countries advise to practice for those situations where straight ahead is not an option (and height is sufficient).
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
It is worth remembering that several of the recent EFATO fatalities appear to have high time pilots that would probably have felt they were intimately familiar with their aircraft operation.
The accident stats in the UK provide a pretty clear picture of who dies. In the last CAA decade summary of fatal accidents there were 8 accidents which could reasonably be counted as EFATO and 4 of enroute engine failure.
The accident stats in the UK provide a pretty clear picture of who dies. In the last CAA decade summary of fatal accidents there were 8 accidents which could reasonably be counted as EFATO and 4 of enroute engine failure.
- All of the EFATO accidents appear to involve aircraft returning to the departure field
- 6 of the EFATO accidents involved the pilot loosing control and stall/spinning in
- 1 was unlucky and rolled over on landing
- 1 didn't make the field and clipped a tree on the way into a field and rolled over
- 0 involved a pilots in a controlled crash landing 'straight ahead'
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 760
Likes: 411
From: not where I want to be
TurboJ & aseanaero you may recall that in the first post on this thread I noted:
"A friend of mine had a partial EFATO in a C-172 at around 400ft agl and managed a 180 to return back to a runway with a tailwind. He landed long & was lucky it was a 1500m runway, stopped just short of the ditch at the end."
Since the guy is still around it obviously worked for him at 400' or so, also it was a partial (my recollection is that he more or less had nothing much above idle speed but I'll check on that) and he made the decision not to carry on straight ahead as perhaps you would have done. Definately horses for courses but landing it straight ahead in this place could have been a lot more messy I would think whereas in other situations it may not have been so bad.
Some time after this happened I took my 'plane up with a [pilot] friend and we tried some mock-EFATO's at around 3kft to see how we'd get on in a similar situation. It did show it was possible but I'm not so sure I'd have made the same choice all the same, at least not at the time. Mind you as I stripped the motor on the offending 172 & discovered the problem I suspect that, being quite familiar with engines, I may have realised the nature of the failure & carried it on a little longer. It brings me to another worthwhile point that in most cases, despite the noises/shaking, if it's still turning then firewall the throttle if need be to stretch things a little further - it's already broken and it could just make the difference getting into somewhere.
bose-x I'm fairly sure it was a 180 in this case as there were two parallel runways at this location but I agree a simple 180 won't get you back in line & it'll take more time/height to do so. Another good point as in my mock EFATO's I didn't line up exactly back on the same point - in a number of the fields I use there are parallel options, if not a formed runway then otherwise reasonable ground to land on, again something to keep in mind perhaps.
I recall one of the things that did concern me originally and was the catalyst for this thread was the use of MS flight sim to emulate this problem and make an assessment based on that. It most certainly does have it's place in training but I'd be horrified if in the event of a real thing someone thought 'well I did it in FS2004 so this should work'...
Finally I trust this additional mince doesn't give the good Captain too much indigestion but F3Greens I'd have to say the 4-engine Arrow is even more fun
.
FP.
"A friend of mine had a partial EFATO in a C-172 at around 400ft agl and managed a 180 to return back to a runway with a tailwind. He landed long & was lucky it was a 1500m runway, stopped just short of the ditch at the end."
Since the guy is still around it obviously worked for him at 400' or so, also it was a partial (my recollection is that he more or less had nothing much above idle speed but I'll check on that) and he made the decision not to carry on straight ahead as perhaps you would have done. Definately horses for courses but landing it straight ahead in this place could have been a lot more messy I would think whereas in other situations it may not have been so bad.
Some time after this happened I took my 'plane up with a [pilot] friend and we tried some mock-EFATO's at around 3kft to see how we'd get on in a similar situation. It did show it was possible but I'm not so sure I'd have made the same choice all the same, at least not at the time. Mind you as I stripped the motor on the offending 172 & discovered the problem I suspect that, being quite familiar with engines, I may have realised the nature of the failure & carried it on a little longer. It brings me to another worthwhile point that in most cases, despite the noises/shaking, if it's still turning then firewall the throttle if need be to stretch things a little further - it's already broken and it could just make the difference getting into somewhere.
bose-x I'm fairly sure it was a 180 in this case as there were two parallel runways at this location but I agree a simple 180 won't get you back in line & it'll take more time/height to do so. Another good point as in my mock EFATO's I didn't line up exactly back on the same point - in a number of the fields I use there are parallel options, if not a formed runway then otherwise reasonable ground to land on, again something to keep in mind perhaps.
I recall one of the things that did concern me originally and was the catalyst for this thread was the use of MS flight sim to emulate this problem and make an assessment based on that. It most certainly does have it's place in training but I'd be horrified if in the event of a real thing someone thought 'well I did it in FS2004 so this should work'...
Finally I trust this additional mince doesn't give the good Captain too much indigestion but F3Greens I'd have to say the 4-engine Arrow is even more fun
.FP.
Last edited by First_Principal; 25th February 2009 at 09:50. Reason: Clarification
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: UK
That said, I'm nitpicking the statement rather than the sentiment
Just lower the nose promptly to maintain safe airspeed and then turn using a decent bank.
to avoid stalling a wing, you need to put the nose further down to increase your speed, but the problem is that you've run out of airspace cos the engine failed at 500ft ??
If you are an instructor you should get your head around this so that you are able to inform your students.
let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: .
No problem FP, no indigestion here
I have been taught the +/-30 degrees in front method, which is what I'd rather stick to. I don't think it's the right time to go attempting things outwith the scope of or against that of what we have been taught when the power suddenly dies at 300 feet in the climb. I'd rather stick to what I've been taught and trust that I will walk away to see another day.
It's what my instructors taught me, and also seems to be backed up by the AAIB, so I'd rather trust that information than trying something I've never done before. Sneer if you like but I'd rather follow tried and trusted advice from people who know what they're talking about. No offence intended to those who disagree but that's what I think.
Smithy.
I have been taught the +/-30 degrees in front method, which is what I'd rather stick to. I don't think it's the right time to go attempting things outwith the scope of or against that of what we have been taught when the power suddenly dies at 300 feet in the climb. I'd rather stick to what I've been taught and trust that I will walk away to see another day.
It's what my instructors taught me, and also seems to be backed up by the AAIB, so I'd rather trust that information than trying something I've never done before. Sneer if you like but I'd rather follow tried and trusted advice from people who know what they're talking about. No offence intended to those who disagree but that's what I think.
Smithy.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Turno j
anything else is a death sentence as has unfortunately been so frequently demonstrated
strongly suggest that you go fly and see what you can do. Then you may have another option if the situation ever arises. Knowledge and currency is always better than rigid dogma.
Base your decision on options available on the day. This can only be based on knowledge of your aircraft, the weather, airfield and skill levels.
anything else is a death sentence as has unfortunately been so frequently demonstrated
strongly suggest that you go fly and see what you can do. Then you may have another option if the situation ever arises. Knowledge and currency is always better than rigid dogma.
Base your decision on options available on the day. This can only be based on knowledge of your aircraft, the weather, airfield and skill levels.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: UK
Belowradar: Its 'TurboJ' by the way:
I'm going to brief what I'm going to do in the event of an engine failure even before I've left the ground, taking into account all the available options in the climb out area.
What I'm also going to do is operate the aircraft according to my training, the experience of other pilots, advice from the AAIB and in accordance with the aircraft operating handbook;
What I'm not going to do is try and wing it by flying the aircraft dangerously close to the stalling speed on the advice of a ppruner, contrary to my training, the POH, experience etc etc...........turning back IMHO is not a viable option....
Regards.......'TurboJ'
I'm going to brief what I'm going to do in the event of an engine failure even before I've left the ground, taking into account all the available options in the climb out area.
What I'm also going to do is operate the aircraft according to my training, the experience of other pilots, advice from the AAIB and in accordance with the aircraft operating handbook;
What I'm not going to do is try and wing it by flying the aircraft dangerously close to the stalling speed on the advice of a ppruner, contrary to my training, the POH, experience etc etc...........turning back IMHO is not a viable option....
Regards.......'TurboJ'
Last edited by TurboJ; 25th February 2009 at 16:45.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
From: Timbuktoo
Reading through this thread has me thinking it may be sound advice, before going flying, for pilots to agree between themselves what action will be taken in the event of an EFATO. Whether it's the local guy, the one with more experience, or the one in the left hand seat.
With the strength of feeling on both sides I can envisage pilots with opposing views having an additional issue to sort out. Who knows maybe such disagreements have occurred and contributed to the outcome?
I certainly would not appreciate having to convince someone, one way or the other, that I was right after the donkey had quit!
With the strength of feeling on both sides I can envisage pilots with opposing views having an additional issue to sort out. Who knows maybe such disagreements have occurred and contributed to the outcome?
I certainly would not appreciate having to convince someone, one way or the other, that I was right after the donkey had quit!
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 123
From: uk
There's a sort of parallel thread on Tech log concerning the 'impossible turn' which overlaps this thread. My view:
It's not impossible at all BUT (there's always a but)........
Need:
to have practised it
to get nose down and speed up
to turn into xwind if poss
to have pre planned/pre briefd
to have clear parameters eg "above x' i will turn back l/r"
to know that achieving the runway is good but not vital - flat green airfield is good
to know that fields ahead are probably better
to only do it for real if there is no other option
On the Bulldog never served at an airfield where it was necessary. Camp at Woodvale was interesting. Lee on Solent - the 90deg turn for the beach better than the water. For the students, keep it simple eg "once yr half way round the upwind turn you may continue the turn to the a/f"
too many people have been hurt in turnbacks, inc a good mate at woodvale some yrs back.
just my thoughts - hope it helps the debate
DH
It's not impossible at all BUT (there's always a but)........
Need:
to have practised it
to get nose down and speed up
to turn into xwind if poss
to have pre planned/pre briefd
to have clear parameters eg "above x' i will turn back l/r"
to know that achieving the runway is good but not vital - flat green airfield is good
to know that fields ahead are probably better
to only do it for real if there is no other option
On the Bulldog never served at an airfield where it was necessary. Camp at Woodvale was interesting. Lee on Solent - the 90deg turn for the beach better than the water. For the students, keep it simple eg "once yr half way round the upwind turn you may continue the turn to the a/f"
too many people have been hurt in turnbacks, inc a good mate at woodvale some yrs back.
just my thoughts - hope it helps the debate
DH
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Right here
At what height does the definition of 'EFATO' cease to apply and the definition of a 'forced landing without power' kick in?
Let's recall the 'standard' engine out forced landing: It places us in a position of flying downwind at best glide speed at 1,000 ft, with our designated landing point straight out to our left or right, and with the engine failure checklist actioned. Of course, we know what reality does to the best laid out plans... There will be adaptions to fit the actual situation; maybe we didn't have time to action all the checklist, maybe we are at 800 or 1,200 ft, or maybe the landing will have to be with a quartering tailwind, and so on.
But contrast that with the 'engine failure shortly after, but not quite at, take off' scenario: We're at, say, 800 ft, with the intended point of landing directly behind us, and we haven't actioned a thing. That is far from an adaption of the standard engine out landing scenario; it is a totally different situation.
So in my view, there are not two, but three 'stages'. First there is EFATO, where everything is quite clear (land straight ahead). Number three, starting at about 1,500 ft or so, is a standard engine out forced landing, where everything is also quite clear (we practice that all the time). The second stage is what I'd call an 'emergency landing'; we are too low to make a standard forced landing, but we might be able to do something slightly more creative than to land straight ahead no matter what.
Rather than to make the 'emergency landing', as defined above, a totally improvised-on-the-spot affair, I have some rules of thumb I intend to follow. At 300 ft I'll be wings level, at best glide speed, and my landing site is what lies directly ahead of me. To get to that point, I will use best glide speed at no more than 30 degrees of bank. At 300 ft, if I'm already configured (full flaps, most likely), I'll action the forced landing check list; otherwise, I'll configure for landing, but I will not try to do both from 300 ft.
So my landing site from the 'emergency landing' situation will be the best spot I can reach using a 30 degree bank rolling out at no more than 300 ft. That is unlikely to be my departure airport. I think that will maximize my chances of actually executing a forced landing, rather than just arriving at the accident site.
Let's discuss this again when I have at least 250 hours in my book; then I might be adding a carefully considered and rehearsed turn-back option as a fourth tool in my tool box. Not sooner.
And if the above reasoning remains purely theoretical, nobody will be more pleased than me!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: UK
Babybear
At our club there are lots of pilots who go flying together - briefing should be an integral part of the planning phase; it doesn't have to be formal, just a discussion about all the options and workload.
TJ
At our club there are lots of pilots who go flying together - briefing should be an integral part of the planning phase; it doesn't have to be formal, just a discussion about all the options and workload.
TJ
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
From: Timbuktoo
TurboJ,
I agree it makes sense, however whilst the flight plan may well be discussed in detail I think it is easy to overlook the EFATO scenario. Given it's life threatening nature it's not inconceivable it could result in a fight over who had control!
Anyone care to acknowledge it as something that has not been discussed when going flying with fellow pilots?
BB
I agree it makes sense, however whilst the flight plan may well be discussed in detail I think it is easy to overlook the EFATO scenario. Given it's life threatening nature it's not inconceivable it could result in a fight over who had control!
Anyone care to acknowledge it as something that has not been discussed when going flying with fellow pilots?
BB
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Right here
2) let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.
The stall speed most pilots can quote for their aircraft is in KIAS. But the airspeed indicator in most light aircraft underread dramatically at speeds well below final approach speed. Not a problem, until you try to use KIAS stall speed to compute stall margins!The Warrior clean Vs at MTOW is 56 KCAS. At 45 deg bank it is 67 KCAS, which is 63 KIAS. At 60 deg bank it would be 79 KCAS, which is 77 KIAS. Best glide at 73 KIAS is 75 KCAS.
In other words, if you are at best glide speed in a fully loaded Warrior and try to make a coordinated turn with a 60 degree bank, you will stall.
Caveat: I used the Cadet POH for my calculations, since I don't have a Warrior POH. But I believe the numbers are identical.
In the C172S I usually fly it gets even scarier. Best glide is 68 KIAS, and clean stall is 48 KIAS, which to the pilot who only knows KIAS would seem to indicate a healthy maneuvering margin. But in calibrated values, best glide is about 68 KCAS, while stall speed is 53 KCAS at wings level, 63 KCAS at 45 degrees and 75 KCAS at 60 degrees. At 45 degrees it is way too close, and if you'd try for 60 at low alt you'd barely have time to say "But I read it on the internet!".
No way I'd go anywhere near 45 degrees at best glide speed! I aim for 30 degrees, and the rest is my stay alive margin.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 760
Likes: 411
From: not where I want to be
TJ & BB Quite agree with you on that, standard cockpit drill here with 2-pilot ops is to brief actions in the event of engine failure although it's usually much more to do with failure just before or just after t/o in a twin. Whether one extends that drill to EFATO's depends on how much time you have judging by this thread 
Capt, yep, 300ft I'd probably do the same as you but every 100' higher gives me more options and so I find a good robust discussion such as this invaluable to see what others would do. Incidentally I may well take the piss but sneering is not part of the makeup
bjornhall you indirectly raise a good point with the checklist thing, certainly not somethign you'd typically be messing around with at 300' but this is where experience of motors and/or flying experience kicks in. If you are a higher-time pilot then typically more of your actions are automatic and require less thinking, so you could have more 'processing time' available to devote to the things that require thought such as swapping fuel tanks, fuel pump, ignition etc whilst still landing the thing. Equally and perhaps more importantly in some cases a good understanding of engines will most certainly help - if it went bang rather loudly & you'd got oil on the 'screen then let's just concentrate on the landing, however did it die slowly like a fuel-out thing or was it intermittent like an ignition thing? Is it simply making noises and/or shaking with reduced power? All of these things give further options that could well be enough to save the day if we're quick enough and our actions are automatic enough. Most certainly the latter is one I can't stress enough, if you've got partial power, and you need it to make a field or whatever then use it don't baby it, this isn't an endurance test!
FP.
Capt, yep, 300ft I'd probably do the same as you but every 100' higher gives me more options and so I find a good robust discussion such as this invaluable to see what others would do. Incidentally I may well take the piss but sneering is not part of the makeup
bjornhall you indirectly raise a good point with the checklist thing, certainly not somethign you'd typically be messing around with at 300' but this is where experience of motors and/or flying experience kicks in. If you are a higher-time pilot then typically more of your actions are automatic and require less thinking, so you could have more 'processing time' available to devote to the things that require thought such as swapping fuel tanks, fuel pump, ignition etc whilst still landing the thing. Equally and perhaps more importantly in some cases a good understanding of engines will most certainly help - if it went bang rather loudly & you'd got oil on the 'screen then let's just concentrate on the landing, however did it die slowly like a fuel-out thing or was it intermittent like an ignition thing? Is it simply making noises and/or shaking with reduced power? All of these things give further options that could well be enough to save the day if we're quick enough and our actions are automatic enough. Most certainly the latter is one I can't stress enough, if you've got partial power, and you need it to make a field or whatever then use it don't baby it, this isn't an endurance test!
FP.