Minimum ceiling for enginr failures IFR

[Tolka]

What minimum cloud ceiling do you set for yourself to allow for a landing in case of engine failure when flying IFR. For example some pilots will not fly if the base of the clouds is less than 400 feet. This is to give a better chance of a successful landing after descending through the clouds following an engine failure. Does your minimum ceiling vary depending on whether you are over water or terra firma?

[Johnm]

I'll take off in anything legal but won't plan on going to anywhere with a forecast cloud base below 500ft and vis less than 1000 metres unless there's a nearby divert with a much better forecast.

[liam548]

400 ft is not very long to pick a suitable landing spot in a sep. 1000ft is probably going to be my minimum.

[Whopity]

Depends how many engines you have, and its engine out performance! SE IFR 1500 ft might give you a chance, anything below 1000 ft gives you very little chance.

[IO540]

What minimum cloud ceiling do you set for yourself to allow for a landing in case of engine failure when flying IFR

If you are talking about overflying fog patches, OVC000

The time window, enroute when the engine power settings are nice and constant, and 65% or below, is too small to worry about.

You could make the same argument about overflying forests, etc.

[Tolka]

I'm not so much talking about fog patches as low cloud especially over water enroute in a SEP. For example, if you were flying from the UK to say Holland and you knew there was a narrow warm front over the sea but it was clear in the UK and clear in Holland. Would you undertake the flight where you intended to fly at 6,000 feet above a 4,000 layer of stratus which went down to 500 feet amsl over the sea. If not, what base would you accept. I'm just curious to get peoples views as risk acceptability varies from one person to another.

[IO540]

Over water it doesn't matter because you are ditching anyway, so you don't need any kind of "decision height".

All you need is a few seconds' visibility of the surface so you can avoid flying into the front of a big wave.

But how will you fly at 6000 feet? On a "VFR" flight you may be illegal unless VMC on top can be assured, and on an IFR flight you will have a helluva fun getting a Eurocontrol route validated anywhere near that low down.

Also, not being a weather expert but hey I am now getting 85% on the mock JAA-crud IR Met exams, having done about 30 of them so I must know enough to fly an A330 through a CB or two a warm front is not going to have cloud tops at 4000ft. More like 24000ft, IME. 4000ft tops tend to be what you get with stratus between fronts, but the cloudbase won't be 500ft then, though it could be in the winter (with bad vis too).

[what next]

Hello!

If not, what base would you accept.

I instruct IFR in singles and twins. Our FTO has a requirement that the ceiling must be 500ft or more along the whole route. After a recent engine failure in one of our training aircraft (during the annual checkride of one of our instructors with an examiner!) I have raised this minimum to 1000ft. For me personally (or otherwise, triplicate my hourly rate...). Over water, I would probably accept 500ft, but certainly not less. In a twin I do not care too much, at least not during a training flight with only two or three occupants and no baggage. Even a Seminole can maintain 5000ft on one engine if it is not fully loaded.

Happy landings,
max

[Pace]

You could make the same argument about overflying forests, etc.

Biggles was a master of tree landings wonder what happened to him ?
Flying is all about risk management. I try never to do anything in aviation where I do not have an out. You must have other doors open to you or it all becomes a game of Russian Roulette.
Flying over extensive fog banks in a SEP is a no no in my books as in the unlikely event of an engine failure your options are closed and you are in the lap of the Gods.
A couple have posted 1000 feet agl as a sensible minimum for SEPs as that would give a reasonable chunk of VMC below to take to a field or other landing area.
Anything less and its still possible but not clever if you break out at 500 feet over an extensive built up area?
So it really depends on how much risk you are prepared to take?
I can remember a few years ago in a twin taking off from literally the only clear airfield in the uk with the whole of the UK covered in fog.
Soon after I took off even that airfield went down in fog.
Aberdeen was clear as was the whole of Ireland and I had plenty of fuel to divert to Ireland. Ok I did the trip but would not have contemplated it in a single.
So really its your own risk management and how much risk your prepared to gamble with?

Pace

[IO540]

Flying over fog banks (for say a minute or two) is no different to landing or departing at so many airports where there are dense houses on the extended runway centrelines.

And I don't hear of airport boycotts on those grounds.

It's actually better because you are much less likely to get an engine failure in cruise (assuming you have put some juice in ).

[Pace]

10540

But that is a judgement you make? At what point do you get lured into flying over a fog bank for a minute or two to flying over extensive fog?

The minute or two easily changes to the extensive before your eyes.

The extensive especially when you know your destination is clear then becomes the NO options risk you take. The Russian roulette gamble.

Pilots take Russian Roulette gambles but it is important that we realise that as part of our decision making.

I still hold never do anything in aviation without an out!!!
An engine failure in a single no matter how unlikely over extensive dense fog gives you no other options but to hit whatever is concealed in that fog.

Pace

[neilr]

SE IR

I think I remember reading in the IFR test prep notes from the CAA that minimum cloudbase for the test to go ahead in a single is actually 1000ft (for enroute) - this seemed sensible to me so I adopted it for any SE IR that I do ...

Remember 1000ft in most singles is less then a minute and a half with no engine - that assumes a straight in approach - if you ahve to turn its even less !!

500ft ... that has been suggested is about 30-40 secs once clear of cloud

Neil

[Intercepted]

The problem with a 1000ft+ treshold for instructors is that students never get a chance to see for real what IMC flying is about, and when it happens for real they will be on their own without an instructor in the right hand seat.

Edit: My comment relates to takeoff and approach.

[what next]

Hello!

The problem with a 1000ft+ treshold for instructors is that students never get a chance to see for real what IMC flying is about, and when it happens for real they will be on their own without an instructor in the right hand seat.

Yes and no. That's one of the reasons why many FTOs use procedure trainers for initial IFR training. The realism of a modern training device of FNPT II standard (or better) is good enough to give the student a very realistic view of CAT 1 minima. If he wants to see those in real life, I'm happy to show him. But only in a twin. Thirty-something Euros per flying hour (or whatever the current rate for in IFR instructor may be elsewhere) is simply not enough to risk ones neck (neither would be 100 or 1000).
And then, as an instructor, if have two important obligations: One to bring myself back to my family in one piece every day and second (and even more important) to bring my student home to his family after the flight. (Piston) engines do fail from time to time. If you fly a lot (instructors do), then it is a pure matter of statistics that you will experience such failures. I have had three so far. Luckily in twins, because two were in IMC with low ceilings. Therefore, I do not take any furher chances, if there is a safe option: A simple "no"!

[IO540]

An engine failure in a single no matter how unlikely over extensive dense fog gives you no other options but to hit whatever is concealed in that fog.

Same at night

I don't disagree, but casting the first stone comes to mind. To acquire my various bits of paper I had to log some 10-20 hours at night, most of which was solid "no escape route" time.

I think I remember reading in the IFR test prep notes from the CAA that minimum cloudbase for the test to go ahead in a single is actually 1000ft (for enroute) - this seemed sensible to me so I adopted it for any SE IR that I do ...

The examiners can specify whatever they want. They also don't fly over water in singles.

The reality is that engine failures under the circumstances discussed barely feature in the stats. Most of the stats are packed with other stuff, like CFITs, running out of juice, mismanagement of the fuel system, loss of control following structural icing, airframe breakup through flying too fast into a CB, etc.

But only in a twin

You are fortunate in that the "JAA IR = FTO" monopoly, at an eye watering £450/hour, gives you that option

[what next]

...running out of juice, mismanagement of the fuel system, loss of control following structural icing...

Those three can be brought to a happy ending by executing a forced landing in a field. But only, if you have the chance to select one.

BTW: I did the mandatory night flying for my own license (was ten hours then). Later I did a little instructing at night too. But once I reached 50 hours single-engine night flying (a purely arbitrary value!) I called it quits. Never again. But any time in anything with more than one engine.

You are fortunate in that the "JAA IR = FTO" monopoly, at an eye watering £450/hour, gives you that option

I wouldn't call that fortunate. Otherwise, I simply wouldn't do it. And if I look around my instructor colleaugues, there are not many who would. There are easier ways to earns one's living than instructing...

[IO540]

It doesn't make sense to try to not fly above fog because a lot of fog is under a cloud of some sort so this would mean you can't overfly any solid cloud cover under IFR, which is silly.

[Pace]

10540

It doesn't make sense to try to not fly above fog because a lot of fog is under a cloud of some sort so this would mean you can't overfly any solid cloud cover under IFR, which is silly.

I dont know how you do things but with me i look at met. If there is something that bothers me in the met reports I look closer.

Fog is one item that can stop me landing. Little else does. In a single I would not just look at my destination and alternatives but I would certainly look at enroute airport actuals and Tafs.

I mentioned flying from the mid UK to Aberdeen when there was extensive fog forecast.

I checked literally all the actuals and TAFS enroute for every airport. The whole lot looked awful.

My destination was clear and forecast to stay so although further south (Glasgow Edinburgh etc were all down at 200 metres)
Ireland was totally clear and forecast to be totally clear so I opted to go with loads of fuel and in a capable twin.

Had I been in a single NO WAY!!!

Because you cannot see it doesnt mean its not there and cannot bite you! bit like at night really when you fly into a CB because you cant see it.

That is the time to be more on alert at what lies below the cloud as you will still find the fog when you dont want to

If you close your eyes to that then your playing russian roulette! I too dont trust pistons.

Most of us have played russian roulette at some time or other me included (more than I would admit to) but at least be aware that you are playing Russian roulette and dont try and justify it as a safe way of operating because its not ?

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

As I have posted elsewhere around 80% of all engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. Running out of/mismanaging fuel and carb ice are the leading cause of engine failures, both totally preventable by the pilot.

I have done some single engine for real IFR and I want to see 500 feet AGL and 1 mile vis in flat country. For over mountain IMC the cloud base needs to be 500 feet higher than the highest ground with 2 mile vis. I feel the probability is high enough that I could make a survivable landing even breaking out at only 500 feet, that the risk is acceptable.

Frankly of more concern with single engine IFR is you generally only have one vacuum pump and one alternator and generally no de-icing and weather avoidance tools. Those limitations IMO represent more of problem than the one engine.

This reminds me of a conversation at the flying club one rainy nasty day. One guy had just made the statement that he would never fly IFR in a single, when a very experienced retired ATPL walked in. The fellow than said

"Bob how many hours of single engine IMC time do you have?"

After pondering the question for a minute he replied

" I guess about 10 hours"

Another fellow then piped up

" No, he means single engine IFR in an airplane that only had one engine !"

The reply from Bob was instant

" Oh I have never flown IFR in a single"







2)

[IO540]

Pace

One "problem" in these threads is that actually "we" do things a lot smarter than we spend time writing about. So to a casual reader some little snippet might sound a bit dumb.

Sure one looks at the bigger wx picture. I doubt I would overfly 200nm of solid fog. But such conditions would probably occur in the context of some bigger crap, enroute and/or in the terminal areas. Vast tracks of fog might be flying parallel to a warm front (you can tell I've been swatting the JAA IR Met can't you - getting 85% now ) but I am not going to be doing that in the first place because most of my long flights are discretionary, not human organ deliveries, and there is no point in flying somewhere if the arrival is OVC003 and it's raining so all you can do there is sit in a cafe

We all play Russian Roulette in terminal areas at many airports. The only debate is what % of your life you spend inside those brief time windows. I've never been concerned overflying the Alps but on a recent flight over the Pyrenees there really were few if any opportunities for a good half an hour. One crosses one's fingers and takes a lot of photos, but I wouldn't do it daily.

Regarding the issue with examiners' preferences, they fly daily and have to do it in both FTO hardware (some of which will be privately owned and leased to the FTO, and in my experience from various training most of the planes are maintained to a pretty minimal level) and privately owned hardware (which ranges from carefully maintained, to absolute junk). I can understand they don't want to take risks because they do this all the time. On the occassions I have done some mentoring, it was always in my own plane. If I go to Greece to do my IR (my 1st and 2nd choice are both UK, currently) it will be in a DA42 not in a DA40

Big Pistons Forever

Frankly of more concern with single engine IFR is you generally only have one vacuum pump and one alternator and generally no de-icing and weather avoidance tools. Those limitations IMO represent more of problem than the one engine.

I agree but that's a separate argument, because there are singles which are dual redundant e.g. the Cessna 400. 2 alternators, 2 batteries, two main buses with various cross-switches... like a 737 really

Also a lot of things can be backed up. To cover for alternator failure, you have

- a battery of known good condition (not a 5 year old Gill)
- a handheld radio, connectable to a rooftop antenna via a cable
- a handheld GPS (or two)
- a headset adapter for the handheld radio

The above stuff costs peanuts. To cover for a vac pump failure, you have

- an electric horizon
- possibly a backup (electric) vac pump, though those are pretty heavy, and actually the vac horizon is almost as likely to go, IME
- partial panel currency

Avoidance of ice and wx is best done by not flying in thick IMC enroute for hours. This is more complex. On a G-reg, for cert for flight in icing conditions, the UK CAA is happy with one alternator. The FAA requires two. It's debatable, because a lot of people fly non-deiced planes in icing conditions, with a way out (usually a descent into warmer air, sometimes a climb up into sunshine though that usually needs an IR and if you have that then you will have planned to be higher anyway, unless flying "VFR" to avoid the 2000kg+ route charges, or trying to avoid using oxygen and that is a really dumb way to fly because it traps you in IMC on most airways flights). You have to be smart about it no matter what, because having rubber boots is no assurance against ice if you are spending hours in IMC below zero. It merely gives you more options. Ice will still accumulate on unprotected surfaces and there are loads of those. I have a de-iced TKS prop but have only one TKS pump. On a full TKS system you have two pumps but the prop TKS is still a single point of failure and if your prop ices up badly then you are going one way anyway...

Oh I have never flown IFR in a single

That is a common attitude among airline pilots; fair enough. I also know some who think a SE should not venture outside the circuit