Engine failure after takeoff
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Didcot, UK
Age: 36
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly single engine Very Low Performance a/c from a very small field quite often (most weeks). I was always taught to fly engine failures in a very similar way, no matter the a/c (as long as it was single engine and had wings)
Basicly, Stick the nose down to get stalling speed + 20%ish, then depending on height....
below 300": Land ahead (within 45degrees of current heading) on the runway/field/road/river(!!)/anything soft after chopping the throttle and completing as many checks as poss. The fuel cock takes priority...
300-500" with wind <10kt: Turn back to land on runway/airfield. FIRM checks can then usually be carried out, so fuel cock off, ignition off, radio call, main switch off. However, FLY THE AIRCRAFT!!! If the wind is >10kt then land ahead as above.
500"+: Nose down, throttle closed as the above two, then complete a mini-circuit. Once downwind, assess height, rate of descent, complete a couple checks if time. If you're not gonna make it round finals (ie final turn to be commenced at 300") then throw it away and land downwind, otherwise, do finals and land.
I've had three engine failures in as many a/c (all mech probs, honest!!) and not broken anything else (me or the a/c) on landing.
Obviously, the captains decision is final. For example, if the wind is really slack, then you could get a long way out before reaching 300", so unable to make it back from a turnback. The best decision would probably (bearing in mind landing area) be to land ahead.
Partial engine failures are slightly different. If you're able to achieve/maintain 400" and stall speed + 20%, complete a minicircuit, completing FCCFI checks once downwind. (Throttle full, Fuel cock on, Choke in, Carb heat cold (unless icing susp), Fuel pump on, Ignition on.) Landing should be fairly simple, although remain alert, and keep asking yourself what you would do if the engine quite altogether.
If you can't maintain 400" and required speed, treat it as a full EFATO, but use whatever power you have to make it to the best landing site.
Basicly, Stick the nose down to get stalling speed + 20%ish, then depending on height....
below 300": Land ahead (within 45degrees of current heading) on the runway/field/road/river(!!)/anything soft after chopping the throttle and completing as many checks as poss. The fuel cock takes priority...
300-500" with wind <10kt: Turn back to land on runway/airfield. FIRM checks can then usually be carried out, so fuel cock off, ignition off, radio call, main switch off. However, FLY THE AIRCRAFT!!! If the wind is >10kt then land ahead as above.
500"+: Nose down, throttle closed as the above two, then complete a mini-circuit. Once downwind, assess height, rate of descent, complete a couple checks if time. If you're not gonna make it round finals (ie final turn to be commenced at 300") then throw it away and land downwind, otherwise, do finals and land.
I've had three engine failures in as many a/c (all mech probs, honest!!) and not broken anything else (me or the a/c) on landing.
Obviously, the captains decision is final. For example, if the wind is really slack, then you could get a long way out before reaching 300", so unable to make it back from a turnback. The best decision would probably (bearing in mind landing area) be to land ahead.
Partial engine failures are slightly different. If you're able to achieve/maintain 400" and stall speed + 20%, complete a minicircuit, completing FCCFI checks once downwind. (Throttle full, Fuel cock on, Choke in, Carb heat cold (unless icing susp), Fuel pump on, Ignition on.) Landing should be fairly simple, although remain alert, and keep asking yourself what you would do if the engine quite altogether.
If you can't maintain 400" and required speed, treat it as a full EFATO, but use whatever power you have to make it to the best landing site.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What constitutes a high performance aircraft? One which has a powerful engine? High Va speeds and the like?
If your engine fails when you are in a single engine aircraft, I would have thought that performance is purely based on the gliding capabilities, the drag coefficient and general manoeuvrability.
If your engine fails when you are in a single engine aircraft, I would have thought that performance is purely based on the gliding capabilities, the drag coefficient and general manoeuvrability.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what is in fact appearing here is that maybe we shouldn’t just say no to land straight ahead. It is clear that different people will vary in opinion, and let us not forget that it the pilot in command who makes the decision.
Coming from a background of gliding, we were always taught to land ahead if too low to turn, complete a small circuit if too high, and turn into wind for a few seconds, and then make a complete turn. However being highly manageable these kinds of exercise are possible more safe.
Basically I am carrying out an investigation to see if there is a better solution to what is common place in general aviation and indeed commercial. The common answer is do NOT attempt to turn back. I think that there is a good argument to say that no need not always be the case. It will take a few months to carry this study out, but none the less I will keep you posted if anyone is interested in my findings.
Antony Bradford
Coming from a background of gliding, we were always taught to land ahead if too low to turn, complete a small circuit if too high, and turn into wind for a few seconds, and then make a complete turn. However being highly manageable these kinds of exercise are possible more safe.
Basically I am carrying out an investigation to see if there is a better solution to what is common place in general aviation and indeed commercial. The common answer is do NOT attempt to turn back. I think that there is a good argument to say that no need not always be the case. It will take a few months to carry this study out, but none the less I will keep you posted if anyone is interested in my findings.
Antony Bradford
ab,
You seemed to have missed the earlier point made by me and Happy Jack that a high performance (power) aircraft will be much closer to the runway at 900' WHEN the engine fails. A high performance (low drag) machine will not need to be so close.
MattCollins,
I am staggered that you were trained to do a 180 and get back to a runway from 300 - 500'. Even in a good glider you wouldn't do that unless you had enough speed to complete the turn without losing height.
Its too late to do the maths accurately but a 180 degree turn in your average spamcan at 70kts is going to take about 20 seconds. At a typical sink rate of 1000 fpm, that's 300' you've lost, just in the turn.
You seemed to have missed the earlier point made by me and Happy Jack that a high performance (power) aircraft will be much closer to the runway at 900' WHEN the engine fails. A high performance (low drag) machine will not need to be so close.
MattCollins,
I am staggered that you were trained to do a 180 and get back to a runway from 300 - 500'. Even in a good glider you wouldn't do that unless you had enough speed to complete the turn without losing height.
Its too late to do the maths accurately but a 180 degree turn in your average spamcan at 70kts is going to take about 20 seconds. At a typical sink rate of 1000 fpm, that's 300' you've lost, just in the turn.
Last edited by pulse1; 9th Oct 2006 at 06:29.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Didcot, UK
Age: 36
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, it isn't the simplest bit of flying ever, but as long as the flying is accurate (ie, speed very close to optimal) and the rate of bank isn't too excessive or too shallow, you can at least turn enough to get back to the airfield. Yes, the landings were heavy, but within g-limits and no extra damage resulted. (FYI, the two full EFATO's landed on grass, while the partial made it back on the run with ease) And yes, doing a turn back just above 300" will result in being very low 'over the hedge', but I know I'd prefer meeting the ground actually on the airfield near medical attention than in a random field with locked gates and a very angry bull!!
However, as I stressed, the captain is always responsible for flying the a/c. If all else fails, just keep the speed up and the nose pointed away from hard stuff! Even using a hedge to 'aid braking performance' or ground looping can save you (and your passenger's) life...
EDIT: Just for info, climbing speed for mycurrent a/c is 55kt, circuit and descent speed 60, and approach (below 300") is 65kt. Optimal sink rate is 62kt, optimal climb is 58kt.
However, as I stressed, the captain is always responsible for flying the a/c. If all else fails, just keep the speed up and the nose pointed away from hard stuff! Even using a hedge to 'aid braking performance' or ground looping can save you (and your passenger's) life...
EDIT: Just for info, climbing speed for mycurrent a/c is 55kt, circuit and descent speed 60, and approach (below 300") is 65kt. Optimal sink rate is 62kt, optimal climb is 58kt.
Last edited by MattCollins; 9th Oct 2006 at 13:44. Reason: speeeelling miskates and more info
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate your views on high performance aircraft, though what I was referring to was high manoeuvrability. Fast aircraft are not necessarily more manageable in terms of there turning and gliding capabilities.
Just to clarify I was never taught to carry out a 180* turn after either a cable break or engine failure. I'm simply testing the idea, and some others. Although aviation is based around experience, I do believe that being so comparably young in it’s' development that aviation could open its gates to new alternatives.
Just to clarify I was never taught to carry out a 180* turn after either a cable break or engine failure. I'm simply testing the idea, and some others. Although aviation is based around experience, I do believe that being so comparably young in it’s' development that aviation could open its gates to new alternatives.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Didcot, UK
Age: 36
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it's good to think stuff through like that. You may not be taught it, but unofficial stuff can save your life (although it can also screw you legally if it goes wrong)
