SLA
 

The SLA technique involves you imagining an angle between you and the touchdown point. If that angle is increasing, you are going to land long. Conversely, if that angle in decreasing you will undershoot. This requires you to fly an almost complete curving approach to the touchdown point. it may sound like what you do already, largely because you have worked it out for yourself. But in my experience, it is tought very infrequently at club level. From my experience of teaching it, students picked it up very quickly - and once mastered they made sucessful glide approaches nearly every time. The primary skill is judging the changing SLA. It's not as difficult as it first may seem.


I am a glider pilot with over 3000 "deadstick" landings and I have used the shortfield landing technique nearly 100% of the time. The reason being that the experience gained this way will give invaluable help when you're in a pinch on a cross country field selection.
I also did over 6000 landings in Birddogs (L-19's) and the landing technique I use for a deadstick is to do exactly as the military. You never loose sight of the intended touch-down point and use all your facilities to bleed off height whilst not allowing yourself to get below the glide slope, as could happen in a standard circuit. I have been lucky to not have had a real engine failure, but I prefer to have either a windmilling or a stopped propeller because with either situation I adjust my technique in judging the landing approach. I think a windmilling propeller functions as an airbrake (braking v.s. pulling prop) and I will leave the aerodynamicists to figure out which produces more or less drag when compared with a stopped prop. Of course the 50 degr flaps on the Birddog help !
An important thing to remember is that airspeed must be bled-off at the time the wheels touch the ground with the stick in your stomach. I know of a few pilots who did not do this and nosed over causing substantial damage to aircraft and ego! Excess speed can be a big liability in a small and muddy field.
So far (touch wood) I have been successful using this technique.

Yankee Whiskey

Quite so. The military mantra: when in doubt, punch out. In most military aircraft, a successful forced landing off-field is not an option. In virtually all light piston civillian singles, it's an absolute necessity.

Again, true. However, the military flies very few light piston singles, and most military pilots have never flown a piston airplane. Even training single engine aircraft include ejection or bailout capability (T-6 II, for example). The use of statistics is nearly always misleading, and a comparison between civillian forced landings in light singles, and those in military aircraft is hardly a good one. Certainly it doesn't speak to training or skill. By sheer numbers, civillian forced landings far outweigh military ones. Even with a much lower percentage number, the number of successful forced landings exceeds those of military operations by a substantial number.

If the military during a given period made two forced landings, one of which was successful, one of which wasn't, one could hold that the military shows a 50% success rate. If during the same period civillian forced landings total one hundred and thirty are successful, one might suggest that with only a 30% success rate, this clearly shows that the military exhibits better training and a much higher success rate. Get the military to do 100 forced landings during the same period and see if the numbers still hold true. You'll find it's not the case, and instead you'll be recording record numbers of ejections or bailouts.

When was the last time the military trained a student to actually land on a country road or in a field?

That might represent one standard, but hardly a good one. A forced landing in a heavily wooded area is often best conducted by intentionally putting the fuselage between tree trunks in order to allow the wings to absorb the impact...destroying the aircraft, but reducing impact forces on the occupants. The aircraft is far from intact, but the results are survivable...by the standard you've suggested, this doesn't represent a successful forced landing. Tell that to the survivors.

In the forced landing I conducted two years ago, described previously, the aircraft was relatively unscathed. The tailwheel assembly collapsed during the rollout, but otherwise it was in good shape. We were able to move it to a farm road eight days later and fly it out after repairs were conducted. I continued using it after it underwent a month of inspections. However, as I exited the burning canyon and made my turn to put it on the hillside, the intactness of the aircraft was the least of my worries. I expected to end up inverted. I had nearly full fuel tanks and expected at least a groundloop if not ending up inverted, and thus expected a wing tank to be ruptured, and a fire. My sole concern was getting stopped and getting clear. Had I ended up inverted and on fire, and had I been clear, I would certainly have considered that a successful forced landing. Intact aircraft, or otherwise.

It's not quite the no-brainer you imply.

A feathered prop most definitely has less drag than an idling engine, otherwise we wouldn't set "zero thrust" at a power above idle when simulating engine failure on a twin. If you imagine starting at a stopped, feathered prop and moving it gradually to finer pitch, you may reach an angle at which the stopped prop has the same drag as the one attached to an idling engine. Whether you reach this point before or after the pitch reaches the fixed-pitch of the real prop is debatable.

Hartman has a useful summary table for a prop he tested in 1934. With the combination that he chose, the prop attached to an engine throttled to idle was less draggy than the stopped prop at 25, 50 and 75 mph, but was more draggy at 100 mph, presumably because at that speed the prop was effectively driving the engine, while the stopped prop was just sitting there.

A very minor clarification on DanW's reply for those who may be self-teaching this technique: the IAP is initially selected at 1/3 or so into the intended landing area.
HTH

HFD

Guppy,
Every RAF pilot whether fast jet, multi-engine or rotary wing begins his training on light, single engine piston aerolanes. The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own. Probably 10% of the RAF's fleet consists of aircraft in this class.

I think you may be trying to skew the facts to prove a 'civvy is best' point. The fact is that the constant sightline angle technique taught by the RAF is a very effective technique for judging engine off landings in any class of aircraft, and more likely to end with a good result than the technique taught during my PPL. Yes, most military have better currency than most civvy pilots but I think the stats do make a valid point. There have been a sufficient number of successful forced landings by military aircraft over the years for the results to be statistically significant and I think you'll find that when discussing successful forced landings we are not going to be including ejections and bail outs.

Every RAF student trains for off airfield forced landings ad nauseam during Elementary Flying Training. If you fly helicopters you never stop practising engine off landings, and the constant sightline angle technique works as well for a 24 ton Chinook in autorotation as it does for a C152.

Back to the original topic
 

I have also done one for real, and it went well.

Referring back to the original anecdote, from the viewpoint of the non-flying pilot, a real forced landing is supposed to look unusually steep, and not just from a drag/speed point of view. In a practice forced landing there's a tendency to try to stretch the glide, because after all, if it doesn't work we can always add power and try again! In the real thing, that's not an option, and a recurring point in all the tips is "stay higher on the glideslope than you would normally", along with "aim half way down the field, not at the threshold". That's because with no engine in a typical draggy light aircraft you can always stuff the nose down for a quick plummet to use up spare energy, but you can't pull back to stretch the glide. In fact when it all goes quiet it may be worth reminding yourself to check the field directly underneath you, rather than gazing into the distance for a better option.

As someone once said, it is better to hit the fence at the far end slowly, than it is to hit the fence at the near end quickly.

In my own case (and to my pleasant surprise) the aircraft stopped about 15 feet away from the wall at the far end of the field!

Caveat Emptor: Never done one for real in a powered a/c.

That said, I'm a glider jockey as well as a ppl, and have made a few outlandings; gliding I fly something like the SLA, and probably would continue to do so outside of a controlled airfield / in a real emergency with a powered a/c. And yes, it's the vertical angle you're interested in.

The only thing I really have to add to this topic is neatly illustrated by Dan's chipmunk page:

Q. All other things being equal, in which direction is the field the longest?

A. From corner to corner....


Glider instruction also tells me if the far hedge/wall/whatever is approaching in a hurry, initiate a groundloop - it's generally a far better way of dispersing energy.. but you're very exposed in the front of a glider. It's also advised that over 'unlandable' terrain, you sideslip in onto a wingtip. Not keen on that.

However in any emergency situation, the airframe is dispensable... particularly if doing so is helpful to the survival of soul(s) contained within.

I've had three total power losses while in the driving seat and another in the passenger seat.

Of those two resulted in restarts (one fuel pump failure recovered by switching on the electric boost pump, the other was an empty tank which I switched over from the passenger seat at 300' agl).

The two that resulted in forced landings both had windmilling props that stopped turning only as speed was reduced on final approach.

The military style high key, low key constant aspect technique is the one I chose with the best chance of success.

You'll never get an ideal choice of field in the right location especially at typical VFR cruising altitudes in the UK, you will probably forget some of the checks and drills, it will probably be 5 to 10 seconds for you to acknowlege the situation before you do anything atall, the rate of descent will be a bit more than you're expecting, but good training will give you a pretty good chance of a successful outcome.

It worked for me as well the one time I went parachuting. It was the first time I'd jumped, but since I did a short ground course first I jumped solo. The centre of the drop zone was marked by a small gravel patch...and using my knowledge of glide approaches I hit it right in the middle...SLA works everytime. :ok:

Shut Down For Real
 

What do you think about this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5MapqXQdU8

These are some italian pilots shutting down the engine for real just for the fun of making the video. As you can see they shut down the engine with an high AoA near the stall in order to stop the propeller and then pitching it down restarting the engine...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

RM86

Flew the little Rollason Turbulent's (VW engine) for many years and loved and learned to respected them.

Learnt valuable lesson about engine handling quite early on when, through a moments brain fart forgot to keep the engine warm in the descent... lost the engine in the circuit after putting the power back on to find... ah, oops it stopped. := Luckily I got it on the runway after cutting everyone up on final (not popular) After landing, got out, pulled it off the runway and sat in the grass contemplating the error of my ways in a fair bit of shock.

Always taught to fly the circuit so that if the engine did quit, I'd have a fighting chance... well at least I did that bit right.

Since then I've been very mindfull of managing the engine in the right way and thankfully the prop's kept turning under its own power! :ok:

Aaah...no.

I said no such thing. Not remotely. I couldn't care who is "best."

Quote:::

In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years, many of them in radial engine airplanes. I've had ten or so in single engine piston airplanes, and two years ago two engine failures in turbine singles within a three month period.

Interesting thread here.

I got to thinking about how many engine failures I've had and couldn't even come close to remembering that many.

What kind of maintenance did the airplanes have that you were flying SNS3Guppy?

On the other hand you must have been flying a lot more hours or years than most of us have.

Quote:
The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own.

Aaah...no.

I'm pretty certain the US forces use the SLA technique for their Texan 2s forced landing pattern. And the technique goes for any single engine aircraft - not just pistons. Even if you do have an ejector seat. Landing without an engine would usually be considered. I remember talking about forced landings with a USAF F16 pilot and he was talking about using a pattern similar to the one I was familiar with in the RAF. He seemed to be talking about a 'Hi Key' position.

Windmilling props and forced landings
 

Putting my glider pilot's hat on here......
Motorgliders with feathering props are pretty common. (Sf 25, etc....)
We have prop brakes, as stopping the prop windmilling takes a fair time at low speed (just above the stall and wait!) Once stopped, we feather the prop and set it horizontal. That's so we don't bang it on the ground if we get the landing wrong, and saves it sticking up spoiling the view. The difference between windmilling and stopped is nearly as great as between stopped and feathered. Get a ride in one to try it out if you can. It isn't the same as a light aircraft, even the grotty twoseaters will glide at about 25 to one, and we have airbrakes or spoilers to make the landing easy. I used to teach in a motor falke, and we normally landed engine stopped. I am now learning to instruct in three axis microlights, and we routinely land engine stopped on the airfield (600m grass). Frankly, it isn't very hard once you get over the idea that you can't go around, and it takes about the same distance as engine turning. It is a steeper approach, so if you feel like trying it choose a nice long field and don't try to land right at the beginning first time. Just learn to sideslip, and flaps down only when absolutely sure of getting in :) or not at all, sideslips are more controlable.

Had a real one during my training at 900ft QFE on the climb out with Instructor say beside.

PFLs were something that I struggled with, hence the Instructor regularly sprang mock engine failures on me with a number of scenarios.

As a result, both our responses were immediate, well drilled, and we got back in without too much stress. Good teamwork lead to us being pretty chilled about it on finals albeit with a dead engine. Was straight back in the seat the following week.

So, no surprise for me with our successful outcome. And as a PPL today, I still practice them.

My advise would be to know your local area around your home airfield well as you will have far less time to respond than being at 3000ft plus in the cruise over the country side. And when I say well, look at the local features such as power lines that might interfere. I spoke to someone who also had an inflight failure and asked them why they diverted when it seemed apparent that they could return. Low power lines in the vacinity of the approach was the response.:D

Why did your engine fail?
 

I read almost every post and some of you experienced a real engine failure and you all explained how it happened and what the reaction/result was.

To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're engine failed! or the reason it may happen. If there is no pilot's fault in managing the fuel qty, selector, icing and the airplane was always handled by a serious maintenance center, what may go wrong?
For those who lived this event do they know what happened at the engine?

Useful Lesson
 

Friend walked away from a (self-induced) forced landing in a PA-28 in the Netherlands. Shortly after getting his PPL he was flying with his fiancee when he decided to demonstrate a simulated engine failure. At about 150' above his selected landing area he re-applied power and........... nothing. (Possible rich mixture cut-out per the investigators.)

Anyway, to cut a long story short, he missed his intended field entirely AND the one beyond it and finally got it down into a third field, crashing through a fence / ditch, sustaining substantial damage to undercarriage (one side collapsed) wing and engine (nose wheel collapsed). Fortunately they both walked away from it.

The moral here?

DON'T SELECT THE BEST EMERGENCY LANDING AREA. SELECT THE BIGGEST..........

She still married him!

Failures resulting in engine shut downs that I can recall .....I probably will think of more later.

P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure

P&W R1830....PBY......Cylinder failure..separation from engine.

P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure.

R1830....PBY.....Catastrophic failure of the supercharger.

PT6-20..Twin Otter......Fuel controller.

PT6-20...Twin Otter.....Fuel Controller.

Those are all I can recall right now that resulted in an engine shut down and landing at nearest airport......one of which was 275 NM away in the high Arctic.

By the way the failures on the P&W1830's were over a period of 10,000 hours flying time on that type of engine.

It is interesting to note I have never had a failure in a single engine airplane that resulted in a forced landing with no power.

Probably because I'm just lucky. :ok:

Probably.

In the case of the last one I cited, the rear turbine bearing failed, allowing loss of the engine oil. When the engine oil was gone, the gas generator (engine core) continued to run without any problem, and normal power control responses. There was no oil available to actuate the propeller, and therefore no torque available.

The T6II's aren't piston airplanes, and unlike most singles, it has removable seats...as you know.

The High key position is a point in a simulated flameout pattern...not really a forced landing pattern. It's a typical descent, and it's best described not by maintaining a constant angle, but by staying close enough to during the steep descent and approach to make the runway. You can call it whatever you like, SLA, SFO, overhead approach, whatever...it's a descent in the pattern to a chosen landing point by remaining close enough to never get low. You can use a constant angle, you can imagine little window panes to fly through, or whatever technique floats your boat. The result is the same; don't crash.

These patterns aren't taught to execute forced landings, particularly ones off field.

Just fine. With some 30 different companies and agencies. R2600's, R3350's, R4360's, PT6A's, T56's, TPE331's, TFE-731's, and other equipment. In small powerplants, A-65's, 0-200's, U470's, IO520's, etc.

That's really irrelevant now, isn't it?

That's really irrelevant now, isn't it?

Only if you are lucky like me SNS3Guppy. :ok:

It's you unlucky types who have all those engine failures who I feel sympathy for. :sad:

One thing I am fairly certain of SN3Guppy from reading your posts I may not be a great pilot and sure as hell don't know all I should about everything in aviation, but I'm betting that if we compared our flying experience and time in the air I'm more lucky than you. :ok:

RMarvin86.

Quote :> To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're (sic) engine failed! or the reason it may happen. <

The EFATO was not a TOTAL engine failure. Just sufficient power reduction (not even enough to maintain S & L) to leave no choice but to forced land , and quick.

Hot Gypsy Major/100LL fuel - caused exhaust valves on two cylinders to gum up. Resulted in couple of maintenance suggestions, one of which was to ream out the valve guides a few 'thou' more when zeroing engines after a rebuild.

Had the problem a couple of times before but not so drastic. Gypsys were designed for Low Octane fuels (non-leaded 73 Oct) not Low Lead. Lead reacts with aluminium-bronze and aluminium cylinder heads. Also hotter engine temps. caused lube oil to lacquer on the valve stems/guides, I believe.

Had another shutdown a long time ago due loss of oil pressure, via a mis-fitted NRV in the prop.control unit of a turboprop........ but that's another story !
:ok:

The majority of engine failures aren't complete engine failures or catastophic power loss. Partial power loss is indeed an engine failure, regardless of whether it requires a forced landing, or not.

A rough running engine...you just had an engine failure, whether you realize it, or not.

Basically the same for me.

Engine didn't pack up all together, but available power was not enough to sustain straight and level flight and being low level, their was little to debate.

The engine was removed and sent away for overhall as it only had around 50 hours to go anyway. We suspected some sort of carburettor contamination and I had been using a grass runway.

Recalling it now, I remember that as part of our cause for failure checks, the rpm went up immediately following the application of carb heat. Available power at that time was around 900rpm.

Once on the ground and post shutdown, the engine failed to start.

A rough running engine...you just had an engine failure, whether you realize it, or not.

-------------------------------------------------------

So using that meaning of the words " engine failure " anytime you get a rough running engine caused by a fouled spark plug you have experienced an engine failure?

I'm afraid I do not subscribe to that simplistic an evaluation of what an engine failure is.

But hey Tiger , whatever turns your personal crank and makes you feel like you are living the life ...go for it. :rolleyes:

You know chucky, you're somewhat of a pompus ass, aren't you?

The majority of engine failures are partial power failures. No, a fouled plug doesn't necessarily constitute an engine failure...but you are probably bright enough to know that one doesn't always know if it's a fouled plug. You're going to advertise to the new private pilot on a private pilot's forum that one should make such a stupid assumption?

I've had one or two plugs out of 28 on an engine cause enough vibration that it needed to be shut down, and many other times when a simple mag change was enough. I've also had engines vibrating hard that felt very much like a fouled plug, but involved lifting heads, fuel flow fluctuation (and subsequent failure) in a 206, vibration due to propeller malfunctions, and other problems which one could be forgiven for believing were simply a fouled plug.

You're going to sit there and waffle on about your blessed experiences and suggest that each private pilot out there should dumbly make the assumption that vibration or other symptoms of a sick engine are merely a fouled plug?

I experienced a manifold pressure loss in an R2600, years ago; the engine ran like a top, but nothing more than barometric pressure. The clutch failed, and though we had no other indications, the engine was full of metal. Certainly mechanical problems warrant getting back on the ground soon enough. Certainly an engine doesn't have to produce no power to be a failed engine. If it's failing to function properly, it's failed. A partial failure is as good as a total one.

The TPE-331 I learned, can experience an oil loss and run for a half hour. In your little heaven, perhaps an engine flying around without oil isn't a failure. In my world, it resulted in a forced landing on a hillside during a forest fire. Perhaps you haven't had the benifit of that experience.

This is a really interesting thread that is a useful read to all & sundry.

And it will continue to be if Chuck & Guppy don't drag it into a personal "who's got a better engine failure story" contest. Obviously you've both had fascinating flying careers, with a lot of useful experiences that you can share and hopefully the rest of us can learn from. But not if the two of you resort to squabbling online. That acheives nothing.

As for me, the only engine failure I've had so far in 17 years resulted in the dreaded 3-engined approach in the 146 :eek: I have a piece (very small) of the engine in my logbook. The cause was a cracked fan blade coming loose and destroying the rest of the engine.

I've been incredibly lucky; long may it stay that way.

Great topic.

Good point fernytickles, the private pilot forum is not the place for squabbling about who has done what and whos sand box is bigger.

So I shall apoligize to SNS3Guppy for being confrontational and shall refrain from getting into personal opinions regarding the difference between " Real " engine failures and other types of engine problems....

.....for sure it is possible to give the wrong message to new pilots and I don't want to do that.

And the time has long passed since I have a desire to measure dick size with other pilots anyhow. :E

As a PPL with quite a few hours but never an engine failure, it puzzles me why aircraft engines are prone to failing after all the controls and servicing when car engines with all their gadgets never seem to stop of their own accord these days. When did you last have the engine on your car stop dead - I havn't and I do about 30,000 miles a year?
Some posters on here seem to have had dozens of engine outs
So someone please explain why aircraft engines have higher failure rates than car engines.

Bluntly, because aviation safety management has shot itself in the foot.

It's very expensive to change anything in aviation, particularly when it comes to the critical bits of an aircraft. And anything that might perform worse than the status quo is rejected. As a result, aviation is stuck with the status quo -- and for engines that means the ones that were designed in the 1950s -- which are probably considerably less safe than a modern alternative. But no one can afford to prove it.

Hazarding a guess and like yourself, spending alot of time behind the wheel.

The % actual RPM requested or used against % available RPM is alot higher in a light aircraft compared to my 320D.

I've never driven my car at full tilt with the RPM on max on the M40 :ok: , yet I do this everytime I launch myself down 27 at EGNX !!

Also, car engines today have alot more technology in them regarding reliability and management, or so they tell us. BMW actually told me last month that my current car has an adaptive engine management system that logs and takes into consideration my driving style (rpm, gear change and the like) and uses this information to produce the most efficient use of the engine / gearbox etc etc. :bored:

Have to recall that SNS3Guppy has had his engine failures to nothing less complex than an IO540 if I recall his last couple posts correctly... If someone put an R2600 in a C172 I wouldn't want to fly it. How often have you heard of an O320, O360 or IO360 packing up when it wasn't due to fuel starvation or carburettor ice? Happens, but it's rare as hell...

One would need to add some real statistics to this thread in order to discuss reliability of traditional light GA engines, Rotax lawn mowers, Thielert gizmos, and modern car engines... Such as the number of forum posts spawned by a failure in each category, and hence the perceived reliability... :E

I think the ones who really wouldn't want you to see reliability statistics are the car engine manufacturers...

I believe I also identified small 65 hp powerplants such as the A65 or C65 (J-3 Cub), and the 0-200 (Cessna 150). To be included as well are the 0-320, and O-470/U-470 (Cessna 182, Cessna 310). Point is, it happens, and when it does, how well anyone else has prepared for it is completely irrelevant to you. How well you're prepared for it is all that's important.

Preparation is as much mental and emotional as it is training to put the airplane in the dirt or in the trees or water. Having thought through it an mentally briefed and prepared for the situation is important, but even more so is the ability to not live in the past. The sensation of "this can't be happening to me" is a natural one. However, the ability to let go of what used to be, and live with what is, becomes one of the single most important traits you can posses when things get quiet, or rough.

I've done a lot of work on the side to support my flying habits, including various duties that required the use of a firearm. That in turn required regular qualification with the firearm. One job involved protecting large sums of money. One of the range qualifications involved holding a money bag weighted down to resemble coins and cash. It was held in the shooting hand, and on a signal, one had to drop the bag, draw the duty sidearm, and engage two targets with two shots to the torso and one to the head, each. The number of shooters who attempted to transfer the money bag to their other hand, or who attempted to draw with the bag still in their hand, or who did nothing because they couldn't mentally let go of that bag, was very surprising. Especially under pressure. Seems so simple...just letting go. It's not simple.

Letting go of what was, whatever that may be, is crucial to survival. Don't be jaded into thinking that because an engine is "simple" then it's foolproof, or less failure prone. It isn't. It may be the carburetor; I've seen floats stick, jets plug, carb ice that builds extremely rapidly and engines that can't be restarted as a result, cylinder heads that lift, valves that fail, propellers that break, magnetos that disintegrate...it happens, and can happen to you. A finely tuned and well running engine is wonderful, but you fly the wing, not the engine. Whether the engine is there or not doesn't determine your ability to fly the airplane...just the trajectory you'll eventually take and the range ou have available to you. The airplane is still the same airplane it always was, still responds to your control inputs, and is still under your control when you lose power. You may lose some of it, you may lose all of it. Whatever you've lost (even if the throttle is stuck wide open, or the mixture control has frozen...I've seen those too) or are stuck with...fly it.

The truth is that the IO-540 isn't really much more complicated than the 0-200 or 0-320. It's a slightly bigger air cooled engine with a few more parts...but basically the same. Any engine can fail. Unlike a car, however, you don't simply pull over to the side of the road.

I've had a few cars quit over the years. Mostly older cars, which I tend to drive. I've been through several vans, each over 200,000 miles, and each have had engine failures, and transmission failures during that time. I have a suzuki samurai that's between engines...just going in for it's fourth engine. It will probably be going long after I'm gone. But engines aren't infallible. I drive about 85,000 miles a year or so in my personal auto.

Many of my mile are highway miles. Long stretches of ten hours or more, regularly, when I'm home. The engine lives a fairly easy life; constant RPM, relatively low demand, and it's climate controlled; a cooling system which keeps the metal in that engine under fairly constant conditions. The engine and transmission are fixed in the vehicle with essentially only one type of load.

Compare that to an aircraft engine which is exposed to the environment, is cooled by changing airflow, is largely magnesium and aluminum, rather than steel, and in many cases is a direct drive crankshaft attached to a large spinning disc which is subject to gyroscopic forces, air loads, and a varietyof moments. The engine may fly through a rainstorm with changing cooling characteristics, or be taking off on a hot dry desert day. The engine may sit on the front of an airplane that merely takes off, keeps a fairly constant power, and lands...or it may be on the front of an airplane that maneuvers hard and puts a lot of stress on the engine, propeller, and airframe. Some engines live very hard lives, some don't.

An engine failure in a car doesn't have nearly the psychological significance as one in an aircraft. It's not nearly as memorable, either. The engine in your airplane has some significant differences from the one in your car...the biggest similiarity being that they both have pistons. Bear in mind that it's not just piston engines that fail, though.

Rather than getting too wrapped around the axle about car engines, perhaps it's best to think in terms of the potential to lose any aircraft system. It could be landing gear, it could be hydraulic, it could be a flight control, a flight instrument, fuel, an electrical component or system. An engine failure may not be nearly as significant as a failure of a different kind...your assignment as pilot in command is to ensure that the flight is handled safely regardless of what quits, malfunctions, goes awry, or doesn't quite work as advertised. It happens.

In the past month or so I had a hydraulic pump case split...the pump pressurizing our brakes. I had a flap assembly fail and nearly leave the airplane. I had a smaller turbine engine used to provide electrical power and system air, fail (auxilliary power unit). A part of the electrical system on one engine, a Constant Speed Drive unit, failed. Various other conditions occured, each in different aircraft, each at different times, each handled by a particular checklist. Each of these conditions presented certain limitations we had to live with, but none of them were the end of the world. Aircraft are mechanical by nature, and mechanical things break, wear out, or operate in a manner sometimes for which they weren't designed. These things happen.

In light airplanes, I've had flaps fail. A wing crack. instruments and electrical quit. The year before last, an inflight fire. Again, it happens. The common component, which has absolutely nothing to do with measuring one's anatomy (but everything to do with getting on the ground safely) is how you address each situation. Each one is unique. Each one has a procedure, each one is controllable, each one can be handled...by you. Knowing your airplane, training as regularly as you can, reading, playing out scenarios in your mind, looking for traffic, looking for landing sites, avoiding putting yourself in untennable positions such as extended flight over water or flight in the clouds in single engine airplanes, etc...all go toward providing a successful outcome for you.

Bottom line is, it's all on your shoulders. Car or airplane.

small engines fail too
 

let me see now.....:hmm:
An O-320 with low oil pressure, high temp, reduced power output; landed it before it quit
an O-360 with a mag drive failure yes I know you can select the non failed mag but on take-off that is a little tricky
an O-320 but could have been anything, the throttle cable stuck solid
an O-200 with two plugs out on the same pot
another one on an O-360
Cracked cylinders on glider tugs, various
a volkswagen in a falke with a both mags dying progressively, and simultaneously
don't ask about cars......I drive old cheap ones
I actually managed to nurse them all onto airfields except for the cars.
They don't have to be complicated to fail

In 5500 hrs I have had the following engine failures

DC 6 P & W R2800 3 Times (supercharger clutch, swollowed valve, broken pushrod)

S2F CW R1820 2 times (separated cylinder head , prop roll back )

PA31 Lyc LTIO 540 (seized shut waste gate = 18 in max MP)

PA39 Lyc IO 320 (fuel selector failed when switching tanks = no fuel to engine)

C150 Cont 0200 (oil pump drive failed = no oil press)

The moral of the story

1) If you fly big radials the more of them on your airplane the better. :)

2) Full/partial failures in light aircraft are most likely due to an accessory failure, not the engine itself

3) Despite previous posts all my light aircraft failures gave some warning

- In the case of the PA31 the previous pilot put 6 litres of oil in the engine in 10 hrs but did not think to tell anyone :*:confused:

- In the case of the PA39 the fuel selector did not feel right when I checked it on the pretake off checks, but I ignored it...shame on me :(

- In the case of the C-150 I always note where all the engine guages normally line up in any aircraft I fly. Shortly after take off I noticed that the oil pressure needle was 2 needle widths lower than normal. I immediately turned back to the airport and was on short final when all oil pressure was lost.... rather than over water if I had continued:ooh:


One other point. The flying club I used to work for had a annual proficency check ride requirement. I always gave the pilots a no notice PFL. Over almost 5 years, I never had a PPL conduct a acceptable PFL and over half would IMO have survived only with great good fortune. Practice your PFL's:ok:

Just going back to PFLs themselves....

Sometimes if I'm not very close to the best field, I'll do a straight in approach...but a doing a circuit is always recommended.

Which do people think is more important...going for the best field or picking a worse one that is much closer so you can do a circuit around it?

This is a good point. Aircraft and engines usually talk to you before they give up the ghost. Not only are most engine failures partial power failures, most of them are detectable early on in the process. Many complete failures are fuel exhaustion or fuel starvation (there's a difference) faults...most of the time entirely preventable. Fouled plugs that cause power loss are often the result of improperly adjusted mixtures, improperly maintained magnetos, or even spark plugs. Failure to adjust the idle mixture as a maintenance function leads to overly rich operation on the ground, and sometimes failures after takeoff.

I was assigned a Cherokee 180 to inspect, and found some binding in the flight controls. The group of owners flying it had merely accepted to problem without comment. When I inspected behind the instrument panel I found that the flgiht controls were binding on a wiring bundle and some of the instrument hoses; I was able with little effort to duplicate a condition that would have prevented use of the flight controls in flight. Something which gave plenty of warning, but would have proven fatal at some future date...the owners felt it, recognized the resistance, but elected to do nothing.

How many pilots, low on fuel, press on by overflying airports that have a nice long, hard, available runway with plenty of fuel...in favor of going just a little bit farther? More than a few. I checked out two pilots in a Cessna 210 with long range fuel tanks, and cautioned them both that filling the tanks to the bottom of the filler neck made the tanks look full, but left them one hour of fuel short on each side. Both pilots failed to heed that counsel and each ran out of fuel at a later date in a 210 with long range tanks...and made an off field landing.

During a spring training fire school put on by the government several years ago, I was returning from a field exercise in a PZL Dromader (single engine, low wing, tailwheel) equipped with a PT6A-45R engine. I was transiting a very large valley, and about ten miles from the airport I detected a faint smell of smoke. At the time I wondered how a fire in such a vast area with wind, would be concentrated enough to be detectable in the cockpit. I'm used to smelling smoke in the cockpit during large, active fires...but this was a simulated fire, and it was downwind. As I got closer to the airport, the smell got stronger. I did an overhead approach to the runway, and as I crossed over the numbers at a thousand feet, the cockpit began to fill with smoke. As I crossed the threshold during landing it was becoming hard to see and my eyes were burning. I vented the cockpit as I roled out, and breathed through an opening in one canopy door.

As I cleared the runway the cockpit became thick with smoke, and shortly thereafter the brakes (and as a consequence steering) failed. I had a fire on board, with a newly installed dual electrical hydraulic pump. A pressure switch which was supposed to cylce the pump on and off had failed, allowing the pump to run continuously, and the pump burned up...and caught fire. I was able to exit the airplane, remove a side panel which covered the pump, and put out the fire.

Had I been closely monitoring the electrical load, I'd have seen the pump running by a higher amperage output; it would have given me a clue...it would have been detectable. This wasn't an engine in this particular case, it was an onboard fire. However, I'd flown this airplane for several years previously, and it had used an engine driven hydraulic pump...no reason to monitor that ammeter that closely. The pump was a brand new installation, this was my first flight with the new system. This underscores several points, starting with knowing one's specific airplane, intimately. Another is one previously made; airplanes and systems talk to you. Sometimes that very little, nearly imperceptible voice, is all the warning you get. A third addresses the following quote:

You have only one priority; getting down safely. Flying a traffic pattern is a nice extra, but you don't often get to choose a real emergency; it chooses you. Consequently, you don't always get to choose the chance to fly a pattern, and you won't always have the altitude or opportunity to do it. In the latter case described above, had the situation become more developed and manifest itself earlier, I wouldn't have flown the overhead aproach, but would have entered straight in. Had it occured away from the airport, I'd have put it down on the high desert floor, or a road if one was available.

Don't give up a good landing site in favor of trying to fly a pattern. Flying a pattern sometimes makes landing a little easier, but the pattern isn't the thing. The safe landing is. Don't lose sight of the goal.

Radial piston engines require proper handling techniques to prevent damage through miss handling.

Radial piston engines are not all alike in reliability...for instance take the P&W 1340 and compare them to the P&W 985 ( Both are relatively small Radials )

The 1340 is no where near as reliable as the 985.

I have never had a 985 quit on me in many thousands of hours flying them in the Stinson Reliant/ Stearman/ Beech 18 wheels and floats/ Anson mark 5/ and the Beaver.

Sounds like some of us can afford better cars than others! Personally, I've alway driven old second hand cars - and I've had plenty of engines stop on me! The best (worst!) was my Fiat Uno which suffered terribly from carb icing. Can't remember the number of times I had to stop at the side of the road to wait for the ice to melt. But of course, we can do something about carb icing in aero engines. Which is why we are largely comparing apples to oranges.

I've had fourteen engne failures in my career. They have ranged from spectacular detructions with flames and molten metal flying everywhere to a lack of throttle response. On twelve of these ocaisions, I've had another three engines still running, so they weren't much of an event. On the two single engined aircraft where I've had the failure, one was due to a damaged throttle linkage, the other a FADEC failure with an associated problem with the manual backup system. But both of these resulted in a sucessful forced landing (using the SLA method), but I'm trying to back up the point already made that there are plenty of ways for an engine to fail.

Which is why when I was instructing, when training people for an emergency, I rarely gave the student the standard fire or catestrophic failure. The failure which will get you is the inocuous progressive and 'gentle' failure which may not be noticed for a while, or will lead the natural optimist at the controls to believe that eventually everything will turn out OK. Rarely in life - and never when instructor induced, will this be the case!

The only radial I have spent any real time behind was the Huosai (Nanchang CJ6 engine). The Chinese may have an appalling Human Rights record, but they build a nice, reliable, strong engine. Not a single hiccup in the nearly 7 years I flew it. Top quality maintenance had a lot to do with that too.

That engine failure in the 146 was a no warning, catastrophic type. Fairly woke us up at the time. And it was interesting to reflect on how we handled it. Not just from the point of sticking to SOPs, but how we handled it personally. I was operating the radio, and I can tell you, at one point my vocal chords contracted so I sounded even squeakier than normal, making it quite hard to talk. Just a physical reaction, nothing that I could predict or, possibly, prevent. I didn't feel panicky inside, but I guess some part of me must have gone into "fight or flight" mode. Only lasted a split second, but could have been a problem if it hadn't passed.

We were both very concerned during the flight to our diversion. As there was no warning or hint of anything being wrong, there was always the very slim possibility that whatever had caused one engine to go from full power to nought with a very loud bang, all needles in the red arc, then to zero, could affect the other 3 engines. Not a comfortable feeling at all.

Of course, with hindsight, once we knew what had caused the failure, the likelihood of that happening was very small.

Going back to the physical reaction, thats something you really cannot predict. Therefore, having all the SOPs/PFLs procedures so they are second nature will help when things do go to the dogs. Second nature should take over, while the physical reaction is doing its own thing in the background.