Engine failure @ night (SE)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
. Good things is there are plenty of lakes to land on. 
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
. Good things is there are plenty of lakes to land on.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 10th Jan 2003 at 09:13.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
night engine failure = certain death. It doesn't.
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.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 10th Jan 2003 at 13:48.
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...
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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Matspart3
100% or engines failures where the engine wouldn't start again were found to be in this category 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
100% or engines failures where the engine wouldn't start again were found to be in this category
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 11th Jan 2003 at 09:22.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
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....
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
--------------
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
--------------
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Nothing fancy or mystical about my rules, just common sense, to me.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
#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.
Nothing fancy or mystical about my rules, just common sense, to me.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Twyford, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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