Engine Failure After Takeoff - Are YOU ready for it?

[rnzoli]

Originally Posted by piperboy84

I am reading this correctly, the best glide for an EFATO is higher the the POH L/d Max because you need to trade the extra speed (energy) for a proper flare?

No, I think the extra speed is needed for manouvering options (the a/c bleeds more energy in turns, some may be sharp ones), before I am comfortable with the ending point of the final glide.
Another reason is that if I have enough height to turn back with a 180, the headwind during the takeoff will become a tailwind during the turn, and I need to reserve extra airspeed for that change.

[piperboy84]

Another reason is that if I have enough height to turn back with a 180, the headwind during the takeoff will become a tailwind during the turn, and I need to reserve extra airspeed for that change.

Sorry i,m not getting that one either, why would you need more airspeed over best glide due to the wind direction? granted they tail wind will get you back to the airstrip quicker due to increased groundspeed but other than that I don't see need to adjust airspeed when you switch direction on account of wind

[Crash one]

Quote:
Never think about it before takeoff, right?
"Take-off brief" is in the club checklist. An instructor will expect you to say where you're going in case of EFATO at various points.

I don't have an instructor to expect me to say where I'm going.
I think we should forget the instructor/club checklist/someone else will help, thing. Deserted strip surrounded by crops, plowed fields, stubble, cattle etc, depending on season.
Is it a good idea to climb with a shallow angle turn? The longer it keeps running the closer I am to the downwind, my strategy anyway.
Yes I think about it a lot thanks.

[rnzoli]

I don't see need to adjust airspeed when you switch direction on account of wind

I meant only during the turn (not afterwards). Near the ground, the wind can be quite turbuent due to obstacles and the last thing I need is an unexpected minus in airspeed, too close to the ground. For me, controlled flight is first, with reserve speed margins for the suddent task saturation in that situation. Everything else (optimal glide etc.) is 2nd or lower priority. But maybe I am wrong.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Crash one

Is it a good idea to climb with a shallow angle turn? The longer it keeps running the closer I am to the downwind, my strategy anyway.

As a general rule height is life in the EFATO scenario, so I tell my students to climb straight ahead to 1000 feet at Vy airspeed. I would suggest that any turn be delayed until it would be impossible to land straight ahead and then only turn towards a field ahead of you.

I think it is also important to point out that the EFATO danger zone is maybe 2 minutes out of every flight. The chance that a pilot of a Cessna or Piper ( or any other small certified SEP aeroplane) will have an engine fail in that 2 minutes is not high.

Experience has shown that if you do have an engine problem in the takeoff phase of flight it is just as likely or even more likely that you will experience a partial power loss, not a complete engine failure, something that sadly is hardly ever covered in flight training, but of course gives you more options.

Finally if the engine does stop it is quite probable that it stopped because of something the pilot did not do, like drain the fuel, select the right tank, make sure there was no carb ice etc etc. Paying attention to the details of preflight preparation may be boring and unsexy compared to practicing hero pilot PFL maneuvers but it is much more likely to ensure a drama free flight.

There was a report in the accident section of Pilot magazine last year that got my attention. A Pa 28 suffered a complete loss of engine power in a descent to landing. The pilot successfully completed a difficult forced landing in fairly inhospitable terrain such that while the aircraft sustain heavy damage there were no injuries. The pilot reported that he attributed the success of his force landing to the fact that he regularly practiced the forced approach manoever.
The cause of the engine failure was deemed to be carb ice.. It would seem to me that the pilot should have spent a bit less time on practicing forced landing and a bit more time learning about carb icing and developing and practicing an effective inflight SOP to mitigate the chances of devloping carb ice. If he had done that there would be one less crashed Pa 28 in the UK......

Airplanes are not not getting bent and people are not getting hurt because of an epidemic of EFATO's, airplanes are in general getting bent in landing and takeoff accidents that are a result of poor basic flying skills. If you are a lower time PPL and and want to prevent your first accident than I would suggest spend some time perfecting your takeoffs and landings under all conditions.

So my 5 cents (CDN)

Dealing with the possibility of an EFATO, (for those lower time PPL's flying the common certified club trainer/tourer types):

1) Sweat the preflight preparations. Make sure you have drained the tanks and visually verified the quantity. Do a proper run up and make sure you know what you are doing. By that I mean I see too many pilots doing a run up by rote without a real understanding of what the purpose of each check is and what would constitute a non normal indication for each check item.

2) Use a checklist and, in particular have and use a formal set of checks for the pretakeoff checks. This will help stop the stupid errors like having the fuel selected on the wrong tank, mixture not set full rich (or leaned for high DA), the fuel boost pump not on, etc etc .

3) Just prior to takeoff review the immediate actions in the event of an EFATO . The most critical is an immediate and positive pitch down. Practice this by physically moving the control wheel firmly forward to develop the muscle memory.

4) Climb at Vy until 1000 feet AGL to get altitude and thus time and options as quickly as possible

5) If the engine fails below 1000 feet point the aircraft at the nearest open area that is visible through the windscreen. If there is nothing open concentrate on hitting the ground under control with the wings level, a slightly nose up pitch attitude and the airspeed reducing below best glide. Don't turn back to the runway below 1000 feet AGL

At the very real risk of unseemly Monday Morning Quarterbacking, I would humbly suggest that if the unfortunate pilot of the miss-fueled Piper Mirage had followed the above 5 steps the outcome might have been less catastrophic...

[Mach Jump]

I am a student pilot and regularly practice EFATO with my instructor. However, I fly from a international airport with quite a long runway but, depending on runway in use, often only use less than half of it. Most of the books I have read say that you should always use all the runway available and I guess this could be useful in an EFATO situation where it may be possible to land straight ahead on the same runway. It seems to me to be a wasted opportunity. what to the panel think?

nkt2000:

If you have an EFATO in most light aircraft, after using the full length of the runway at an international airport, you will, almost certainly, have either enough runway in front of you to land straight ahead, or enough height to safely turn back for either a glide approach to the same runway, or a landing in the opposite direction. It's unlikely, therefore that you would ever have to land outside the airport after an EFATO.

Your Instructor is probably trying to save taxy time (and your money) by only using half the runway. He is wrong to do that, and you should tell him that you would rather have the safety of twice the runway in front of you if the engine fails.


MJ

[India Four Two]

He is wrong to do that,

Up to a point. When I used to fly out of Calgary International and Runway 16 was in use, ALL light aircraft, which were based at the south end of the airport, used to depart from the mid-point of 16, which still gave you over 6000' available. It was the standard taxy clearance from the tower. Safe enough in my opinion (there is a golf course available off the end ) and it avoided another mile of taxying.

However, if I was flying out of an airport with a 6000' runway and the instructor suggested using 5000', I would say no thanks.

[thing]

Your Instructor is probably trying to save taxy time (and your money) by only using half the runway.

Might not be absolutely correct. I fly from a 9,000' runway and there are various reasons that we take off from the half way point and land a long way into the runway, nothing to do with cost. (Although for night and instrument approaches we use the normal lighting system and landing points) I do agree with the 'runway behind you' school of thought; it's sometimes not that simple.

[Mach Jump]

India Four Two:

Ok, I'll concede that, with a long enough runway, you can achieve almost the same level of options after an EFATO. but, here in the UK, we only have one runway over 12,000', and that's not available for light aircraft.

Thing:

I'll also concede that there are special constraints at some airports, and I know that there are some at your base.

I was thinking of airports similar to nkt2000's local airport at Aberdeen. (6,400')


MJ

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Your Instructor is probably trying to save taxy time (and your money) by only using half the runway. He is wrong to do that, and you should tell him that you would rather have the safety of twice the runway in front of you if the engine fails.

Well ... does one backtrack for the last few hundred feet?

Cold day, nice strong headwind, lightly loaded, someone on the ILS ... maybe a different answer to a hot day, dead calm, plane full to MTOW of passengers not used to light aircraft, nobody else wanting to use the runway.

[Mach Jump]

Well ... does one backtrack for the last few hundred feet?

I do, unless there are truly compelling reasons not to.


MJ

[barit1]

Just searched this thread for any mention of slip or skid.

If faced with a forced landing, if I had any choice in the matter, I'd aim for a close-in field. I might be too high, but I have both stick and rudder. And judicious use of cross-control can correct any excess-energy state I might have.

At my home field, one runway is none too long, and approach obstacles make it a little challenging. But no problem, I often maintain a slip down to 10 feet altitude. Doing this regularly is a good refresher exercise.

Once when taking off from a long runway I had a cowl latch failure at 50'. Quick decision time: make a tight circuit and risk an overheated engine, or land on the remaining runway? I saw no reason to cook the engine, when there seemed to be plenty of concrete ahead. So I slipped for a second or two and gently set it back down. No damage except to my ego - for accepting a cowl latch that clearly had seen better days.

[thing]

I do, unless there are truly compelling reasons not to.

Like trying to get off in a circuit with a call of 'downwind' every 30 seconds...

The 'other' place I fly from, which you probably know as well has a declared distance that is 480 metres shorter than the actual runway length. I believe there are technical CAA type reasons for this rather than the runway being duff, which it isn't. The backtrack past the threshold is 240 metres, I think I've managed to backtrack all the way once since I've been flying there...it's like trying to get out onto a busy road at rush hour...

Just searched this thread for any mention of slip or skid.

I was just going to pull you up there for sloppy reading but realised I mentioned slipping in the other landing thread. I'm getting confused now. I thought I was on the How Do You Land thread but this is the other one.

[Mach Jump]

The 'other' place I fly from, which you probably know as well...

Haha Yes I know that one too, and I fly there often. I know it's not eaay sometimes to make it work, but I always take it right down to the last displaced threshold arrow at either end.


MJ

[thing]

You must taxi at Vne...

[Mach Jump]

You must taxi at Vne...

Hope you're not waiting up to see if I bite on that one?


MJ

[FlyGooseFly!]

I'm a lapsed learner both fixed and rotary but spent many a happy hour accompanying my father in the left seat. He used to love going through the "oh dear the mill doesn't sound right - we'll have to put her down" routine for unsuspecting, especially novice passengers! He never did have a real EO emergency but the ONE thing I can remember him drumming into me was - LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD! To him and his CFI before him, any kind of turning attempt at low speed glide was - KISS OF DEATH!

So I felt sure I was about to witness a tragedy when an Olde 150 waddled almost silently over me at no more than 400ft and began a turn - ignoring the big field underneath him. I waited for the inevitable ( as I thought ) sound of rending metal but nothing came. Happily, a little while later I was chatting to the intrepid airman as he had executed an almost perfect landing in another field owned by a friend of mine. "How about my Dad's mantra" I asked "Ah, this field is big enough to take off from old chap" said he topping up the oil. However; several policeman appeared and embargoed his cunning plan and said aircraft departed on a lorry a few days later.

[9 lives]

I mentioned EFATO testing I flew in a Caravan, and, I posted:

The Cessna Flight Manuals I quickly reviewed (1979 C206, in particular) state a "Maximum" glide speed. It certainly won't be the best for an EFATO! If you attempt a flare and land from an EFATO at 50 feet, at the "maximum" glide speed in the flight manual of 65 knots, you're going to bend the plane. So, Cessna has wisely also provided a speed for EFATO; 80 knots. That's more like it.

BPF responded:

but I have never flown a SEP where a normal flare and landing could not be performed off an approach flown at Best Glide speed. I Have never flown a Caravan but I am guessing nobody else reading this has either.

I have immense respect for BPF, and although we don't always agree, I cannot ever think he's wrong! He's the instructor, not me - I learn from him.

My reference to flight manual information for the Caravan was not so much type specific, but more because it is one of the more recent approved singles, and it is a well refined flight manual. And, coming down to it, it is a single, and handles like a 172 Though feathering the prop sure stretches the glide .

However, I'm going to get semantic here, "best" glide is a misleading term here. Best for what? The glide you'd like for making the coast, or getting off the mountains to the foothills, will be a different glide [speed] than the one you'd like to touch down out of. Yes, BPF can do a nice landing out of a "maximum" glide speed from the flight manual. But, that slower speed is going to give you a very brief flare period - the plane is going to slow down fast! Less time to get it right, no second chance.

Practice a bit, glide in, but I'd give yourself "maximum" glide speed +10 knots the first approach, and work backward from there. If your first attempt to flare for a power off landing is from "maximum" glide speed, you might be in for a shock. as the bottom falls out.

I recall when I started flying STOL equipped Cessnas a lot. I thought to myself, wow, I bet this will glide more slowly, and indeed it would, but at the bottom of the glide, you've got nothing to flare with. You can change the pitch attitude, but you've not got much left to arrest the rate of descent.

So, my reference to the C206 speeds is a hint that Cessna knows that you need a bit more speed to make an EFATO landing successful. Similarly, the speeds for the Caravan hint that the "maximum" glide speed is not the best speed for an EFATO landing.

I opine (and look to BPF for his opinion too) that the established curriculum for the PPL would not include time for really exploring the variations of gliding speeds, and when to fly each. Therefore, it'll fall to the student to seek out that extra training. Student pilots [reading this] should ask their instructor for the additional training to explore these factors, and practice more.

If you get anything wrong about the flare for landing - you crash - maybe undershoot. If, on the other hand, you stored some extra energy for a more certain flare, albeit longer along your landing path, you might over run. A might over run, might be a crash, (maybe not). If it is, it will certainly be less injurious than the undershoot accident. This is where the practice, and preplanning comes in.

This morning, I took off slightly downwind, simply because that was the direction which was not over the completely built up area, with nowhere to go. Preplanning...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Step Turn;8901031

I opine (and look to BPF for his opinion too) that the established curriculum for the PPL would not include time for really exploring the variations of gliding speeds, and when to fly each. Therefore, it'll fall to the student to seek out that extra training. Student pilots [reading this

should ask their instructor for the additional training to explore these factors, and practice more.

If you get anything wrong about the flare for landing - you crash - maybe undershoot. If, on the other hand, you stored some extra energy for a more certain flare, albeit longer along your landing path, you might over run. A might over run, might be a crash, (maybe not). If it is, it will certainly be less injurious than the undershoot accident. This is where the practice, and preplanning comes in.

I really like the earlier poster who noted the advice he received was "When the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane" . You can always buy a new airplane but your wife/husband and children can't buy a new you.

I firmly believe that the paramount factor in a "for real" forced approach is to maintain control of the aircraft. To do that the pitch attitude has to be sufficiently nose down that a airspeed safely above stalling will be maintained. After that the exact "right" airspeed is of secondary importance.

I agree with Step Turns assertion that extra airspeed is in general a good thing. I would suggest that there are 2 things that pilots must pay particular attention to:

1) They must resist the temptation to raise the nose to stretch the glide. This is a recipe for the stall/spin/die scenario

2) They should also resist the temptation to make a normal flare to landing if this will result in the aircraft flying past the intended touch point, a definite possibility if you are high and fast. If you are in this situation make the aircraft land even if this means smashing the aircraft into the ground with an aggressive pitch down.

The best way to generate the personal skills that you need in any of the forced landing scenarios is IMO, to make a point of doing some of your normal landings with no power starting at circuit altitude or greater. Often this is not practicable because of other traffic, but for when things are quiet make a point of closing the throttle at different parts of the circuit. This will not only give you the skills to survive an engine failure but will also improve your normal landings.

Finally as I noted earlier " I do not like one size fits all scenarios". Step has a gazziilion hours on his Cessna 150. My C 150 M POH gives only one "maximum" glide speed, it is 60 kts. Personally I can not envision any scenario were 60 kts would not give enough energy to make a normal flare and landing so I would would be very interested in his thoughts on where this would be an issue, because I lack the flight test background that he has.

[9 lives]

My C 150 M POH gives only one "maximum" glide speed, it is 60 kts. Personally I can not envision any scenario were 60 kts would not give enough energy to make a normal flare and landing

I agree, from an established glide at 60 knots, a practiced pilot can make a fine power off landing. There won't be a lot of time to get the flare right, but enough.

However, as the topic is EFATO, and the differences in that situation, are in my opinion, under trained, I opine that many pilots will have a more difficult time making a good power off landing, if after takeoff, while climbing at 60 knots, and at 100 feet, the engine stops. In that scenario, you have to get the nose down really fast. The instant you get the nose down, you'll be at about 50 feet, and you'd better be ready to flare. There will be no time to establish a glide as such.

It all works, but requires a lot more skill. Thus, I like to encourage a bit more speed for climb away, when obstacle clearance and noise are not a concern. Similarly, when gliding down without out concern for "making" the only suitable landing area, those few extra knots are money in the bank when you come to flare.

My opinion comes from experience. My two EFATO's were happily with a reserve of speed from a flatter than could be departure, and worked. I know several people who did book or steeper departures, and it did not. I believe that a good instructor will assure that their student is familiar with these factors.....