Engine Failure After Take-off
 

Greetings Guys/Girls,

I wanted to share an experience I had while in the Unied States in June with you, to emphasise the importance of never turning back to the airfield if your engine fails shortly after take-off.

Whilst pre-flighting my PA28-161 for a cross country flight I witnessed a horrible accident. A Piper Malibu was making a take-off run along the north eastly runway for a flight to Sarasota in Florida. Whilst taking fuel samples from the starboard tank I could hear the noise of the turbo-prop spooling up to take off power. Shortly after rotation and at about 600ft the engine died. On looking up, it appeared the pilot tried to pitch up to maintain altitude, obviously not much good without the engine, and stalled the aircraft. The aircrafts right wing dropped, and it looked as if the aircraft had started to enter a spin. With only 500 - 600ft of altitude, he was obviously was not going to recover, and the aircraft hit the deck about 150 yards from where I was standing, in a dive. On arrival at the aircraft, obviously, it was not a pretty sight, both pilots were killed on impact, and the passenger in the rear was alive, but later died in hospital.

One thing that shocked me, was how quick it all happened, and what I would have done had I been in that situation. We all know what the book says, pitch for best glide and land straight ahead, or 30 degrees either way off the nose, but when faced with the situation in a blind panic I am sure you would be tempted to turn back to a nice long runway. However, landing flat, perhaps stalling the aircraft into a tree, lake, someones back garden what ever, has to be better than landing nose down vertical, at least you may walk away from it with minor injuries.

Even though as pilots we all know that you should never turn back if the engine fails after take off, I think the temptation may be there, but don't!!!, you will have far more chance of living if you go by the book.

Please be aware that the NTSB have not published any data on this accident, I am only going by what I saw.

Be vigilent and bloody quick to react!! After seeing that happen, I am constantly accessing the flight when flying, asking myself what I would do if the engine failed, never get complacent.

Even though the experience put the !!!!s up me, I think it has made me think alot more about what to do if this happened to me.

From distant memory I think turning back to the field after an engine failure is standard ops for some single-engine turbines. Certainly it is for the PC-12.

Grivation,

That surprises me, do you know what criteria the PC12 is using in order to guarantee that you can safely do a 180 and land back on the runway?

For those that might be interested, there was a very good discussion in the tech forum a while ago started by WWW (I believe) about doing a 180 in a B737 after takeoff.


Mutt.

Nasty one CAT3C AUTOLAND. Nasty. Thoughts go to you as well as the relatives of those who were killed as it must have been a harrowing accident to witness.

Did this happen at Fort Pierce? Seem to recall you or a similar named PPRuNer was flying from there some time ago. If so, are accidents pretty common as I recall noting a newspaper article on a fatal crash when I was there last year?

I think it is best to generally advise the "no-turn-back" policy on forums such as these as contrasting info can cause the wrong action to be taken in emergencies. People should have the "no-turn-back" policy clearly implanted in their heads IMHO. If, a certain aircraft has SOP's that differ then it should be no problem for the pilot of that aircraft to remember in emergencies.

Safe flying,

VFE.

mutt,

I'll see if I can find the notes (been a fair while). As you know a single turbine doesn't really needs to answer a safety case with current certification so there really is no 100% performance guarantees. It certainly is part of the type training course though. I'm nowhere near smart enough to even attempt to give you the aerodynamic reasoning for it!!

VFE - agree 100%.

I always brief myself that if I have an emergency on the runway I will stop. Then I will decide whether I want to vacate/call for assistance/evacuate. If I have an emergency after take off I will fly straight ahead and carry out emergency procedures, resigned to the fact that this maybe in a field if i am lucky, if not in someones house. What I would do if ever faced with that nightmare scenario for real, lets all be honest, you just dont know how you would react. I brief myself to increase the likelyhood I will carry out the correct course of action in the event of the nightmare scenario.

Thoughts from others most welcome, they may save my life one day.

What brought this home to me was watching a 'you've been framed' type TV show that had a section on people with their model planes. Most of them took of, climbed up to 60'-70' (equivalent of say 600'-700' in a training a/c) pitched the nose up and got too slow and stalled. From there to snapping round into a spin and nosing it into the ground didn't take all that long to happen, with no chance of recovery.

Amusing when you see it, but thought provoking when you see how easy it could happen to a real aircraft.

There's a little more on this accident

http://www.aero-news.net/news/sport....ntBlockID=4326

According to this it was Malibu Mirage, the piston engined version of the Malibu.

Ian

Turnbacks are generally a bad idea.

In my time I have had an EFATO and turned back and made it to the field. In a type that was appropriate. With appropriate pre-briefing and weather. At an appropriate airfield.

There are few universal laws in light aviation and never turn back is one of them. On Bulldogs the RAF used to teach the turnback manouver for example. I myself would teach turnbacks on rare occassion to students on PA38 Tomahawks if they were particularly able and we had some time in the syllabus.

If you do not have strict pre-planned minima and have practised the procedure then you are doomed to failure. 600ft would be far too little in anything other than a glider...

WWW

You are right, WWW, that the RAF used to teach the turnback on EFATO, but only to instructors: no student was ever allowed to contemplate recovering to the airfield after simulated engine failure until downwind. There was also a strict height minimum, and the instructors would practice them every month, so be current in performing the manoeuvre. This shows how dangerous the turnback was considered to be - as does the fact that still one of the few fatal elementary training accidents when I was in the UAS was during a turnback!

Do not do this unless you have been told on which aircraft, and under what circumstances it becomes an advantage and have practiced it regularly.

CAT3 terrible that you had to bear witness to this. My sympathy.

Well I remember doing them dual on the Dog.

Scroggs could clarify being an ex-UAS CFI.....


WWW

A simple and obvious reason for not turning back in a light single is:

-Your average descent in a glide will be about 500' per minute (even more in a turn).
-A nice 180 degree rate one turn will take one minute.

Chances are that in the panic you won't execute the perfect turn and will not maintain your best glide speed. You'll probably end up well short of the runway.

Pick a nice road or golfcourse straight ahead and video the 6 o'clock news as it'll provide a happy reminder for years to come...

Agree that turnbacks are a bad idea, besides, the airfield where I am training has excellent emergence landing areas at both ends of the runway, however, I fly the PA-38 Tomahawk and am interested as to what would allow them to turnback over other aircraft.

Thanks.

Raed something in the latest AOPA mag (or maybe the previous one) about a good rule of thumb is to have at least 2/3 of the turn-around altitude by the end of the departing runway to even consider attempting a turnaround.This basically means that if you`re departing a 12,000` runway in a light single, then you gain a fair amount of altitude while you`re still over the runway.
You have a lot more space to do it in.
If you have, say a 2000` runway, well then you better start looking for a suitable landing area fast.

Send Clowns

Interestingly enough the students at our UAS were authorised for turnbacks once trained for them, simply because there was a bl**dy great urban sprawl directly off the end of one of the runways. Like many things in aviation, it was all down to risk/reward. The chances of surviving the turnback were calculated to be greater than if a straight ahead landing was attempted. This procedure of course had to approved by CFS and Standards. The turnback could only be initiated above a certain height (can't remember the figure - too long ago) and success required fairly constant practice of the manoeuvre and considerable stick and rudder skills to hold a 45degree turn at low level in a rapidly descending glide. Speed obviously had to be increased to give sufficient margin over the stall, and the w/v could make positioning for the landing tricky to say the least. In fact, as I think back, it was not expected that you would actually make the runway, but simply land somewhere on the field, but that was deemed preferable to a row of terraced houses.

I have a feeling (although I may be mistaken) that some years after I left the UAS, the perception of the risk/reward ratio changed, and only instructors were authorised from then on, but I'm not too sure of this.

One thing's for sure, it's generally not a good idea to turnback, unless you can fulfill these requirements (in my humble opinion):



1. A problem with the airfield that makes a survivable straight ahead landing almost impossible.

2. An absolute height restriction, below which, if the engine fails, you will land straight ahead.

3. An exact speed and bank angle at which you will fly the manoeuvre.

4. Current practice of the manoeuvre at the airfield in question, along with good stick and rudder ability.

I should probably remember this, but can't right now. By how much does the stall speed increase (say at 30 or 45 deg AOB)? Obviously all aircraft are different, but I'm sure I saw a rule of thumb somewhere

Stalling speed in the turn=level stalling speed x square root of the load factor

(because any bank angle corresponds to a value of 'g')

eg: an aircraft at a bank angle of 60 degrees pulls 2g.

Lets say it has a stalling speed of 100kts.

Stalling speed would therefore be increased to 141kts.

An easy rule of thumb for this I'm not so sure of (apart from simply being aware that at 60 degrees of bank your stalling speed is going to be almost half again...which is something to be respected!!)

:)

Nonetheless there are times and places whereby a well executed turnback is the best option.

WWW

A good thing to keep in the back of your head if you ever have to do a turn-around is the wings level stalling speed and the stalling speed at 30 degrees of bank.Why 30?In a low-speed situation (as well as being in a nose-up situation) you shouldn`t really be banking too much as you are already relatively close to your stalling speed.Most pilots NEVER exceed 30 degrees of bank in the pattern due to this fact; increased bank angle gives a lower rate of climb - instinctively, to increase the rate of climb (staring at your VSI or attitude indicator) the reaction is to pull the yoke towards you.Thereby tightening the turn, increasing load factor and thereby stalling speed.
If an engine failure occurs (small GA aircraft) your reaction should be ABC: Airspeed, Best field, Carb heat.Of course being at a higher altitude you should try to fix the problem as well - by using the checklist.
So...engine failure after takeoff...where to land...best glidespeed...carb heat...wind direction (if you`re turning back).

Ten years ago we used to teach turnbacks on UASs as part of the syllabus. There was a considerable body of opinion at the time (backed up by a fair few accident reports) that suggested that the turnbacks were more dangerous than the engine failures! Subsequently the emphasis changed to suggest that the minimum experience level needed to have a good chance of safely completing a turnback was well above student level, and so, after 1993 or so, you'd only see Instructors doing them.

Obviously geographic factors may force turnbacks to be contemplated on some runways. If that geographic factor is population, you'd have to speculate that the future of that runway (at least for single-engined aircraft) is limited!

My own advice? I can assure you that the shock of losing an engine will take up LOTS of thinking time. If the minimum safe altitude for initiating a turnback in your type and on a given runway, is 600ft, you may need 800ft or more in the real event to have a chance of staying alive. It's like V1. When you're contemplating calling it, it's already too late to stop!