Engine failure after takeoff
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine failure after takeoff
As part of my final year project at the University of Salford, I have chosen to investigate Engine failures after takeoff. How do various procedures vary, and which is best? Is there a better way to go about such an event?
I have heard over again that turning 180 after takeoff is frowned upon, but what if you took off over water and at 900ft your engine cut out? What would you do?
Any personal thoughts or information on airline SOP's would be gratefully received.
Antony Bradford
I have heard over again that turning 180 after takeoff is frowned upon, but what if you took off over water and at 900ft your engine cut out? What would you do?
Any personal thoughts or information on airline SOP's would be gratefully received.
Antony Bradford
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Over there.
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An engine failure on take off is a well practised scenario.
Without going into an particular airline or type specific SOP's the general flow is as follows:
1) Control the aircraft, keeping it on the runway centreline.
2) Rotate and establish a positive climb.
3)Around 400` recall or ECAM actions can be initiated to secure the engine or extinguish any fire. Basically thrust lever to idle, master switch off and then fire swithes and extinguishers if required.
4)Once completed and above Minimum Flap Retraction Altitude (~1000`) accelerate and clean up the aircraft.
5)Once all this is done and safely flying, complete any remaining checklists and prepare for a return forr landing.
Turning 180' around is not a good idea and would probably never be done.
Your scenario of a failure at 900` over water would be a relatively easy procedure. Height and speed have been attained and no obstacles to worry about. Worst case failure is a total thrust loss at V1 of a critical engine.
Without going into an particular airline or type specific SOP's the general flow is as follows:
1) Control the aircraft, keeping it on the runway centreline.
2) Rotate and establish a positive climb.
3)Around 400` recall or ECAM actions can be initiated to secure the engine or extinguish any fire. Basically thrust lever to idle, master switch off and then fire swithes and extinguishers if required.
4)Once completed and above Minimum Flap Retraction Altitude (~1000`) accelerate and clean up the aircraft.
5)Once all this is done and safely flying, complete any remaining checklists and prepare for a return forr landing.
Turning 180' around is not a good idea and would probably never be done.
Your scenario of a failure at 900` over water would be a relatively easy procedure. Height and speed have been attained and no obstacles to worry about. Worst case failure is a total thrust loss at V1 of a critical engine.
Last edited by INLAK; 5th Oct 2006 at 16:58. Reason: Syntax
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for your input, it certainly has got the brain working.
Unfortunately I am only a PPL holder at the moment, though as part of our course we are covering APTL theory, hence i do have a reasonable depth of knowledge about key areas regarding the subject.
What if you were:
1 In a single engine aircraft and suffer an engine failure over sea at 900ft agl?
2 Where in a twin piston engine aircraft, or rather one whereby full thrust on the remaining engine is not an option due to the couple setup by loss of an engine?
Further more, how many pilots (and please be has honest as you can here), actually admit to fully going through a "what if.." stage before takeoff?
Any thoughts chaps and chapesses?
Unfortunately I am only a PPL holder at the moment, though as part of our course we are covering APTL theory, hence i do have a reasonable depth of knowledge about key areas regarding the subject.
What if you were:
1 In a single engine aircraft and suffer an engine failure over sea at 900ft agl?
2 Where in a twin piston engine aircraft, or rather one whereby full thrust on the remaining engine is not an option due to the couple setup by loss of an engine?
Further more, how many pilots (and please be has honest as you can here), actually admit to fully going through a "what if.." stage before takeoff?
Any thoughts chaps and chapesses?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
antonybradford
Without going into chapter and verse may I suggest you look at your topic under some sub-headings.
There is a world of difference between transport category aircraft and general aviation aircraft (both single and twin engined) when it comes to engine failures. The first has, if the figures have been correctly computed, a guarantee of flight. The second is problematic for both types.
There is a wealth of information contained in crash investigation reports on the dangers of trying to turn back to the airfield after an engine failure in a single engine aircraft. I hope the link below works as it is one such report. There is another contained in the same data base of a Cherokee 6 fully loaded that suffered an engine failure on takeoff from Hamilton Island. All died when the pilot lost control trying to turn back.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200601688.aspx
With twin engine GA aircraft the essential thing to flight is maintaining better than the single engine best rate of climb speed or "blue line". For most pilots in that class of aircraft it is the go/no go speed. Engine failure below it then close throttles and stop or land despite the probable consequences of an airstrip overrun. Better that than a loss of control in flight. The blue line speed is for a lot of pilots their gear up speed and if an engine failure occurs you do the PHASE 1 checks and attempt to fly away. Temperature and weight may conspire against that but it can be done.
Your comment about the coupling problem would suggest a VMCA problem and there is no way any pilot should be there in flight but perhaps I misunderstood your comment.
Hope some of this helps.
Without going into chapter and verse may I suggest you look at your topic under some sub-headings.
There is a world of difference between transport category aircraft and general aviation aircraft (both single and twin engined) when it comes to engine failures. The first has, if the figures have been correctly computed, a guarantee of flight. The second is problematic for both types.
There is a wealth of information contained in crash investigation reports on the dangers of trying to turn back to the airfield after an engine failure in a single engine aircraft. I hope the link below works as it is one such report. There is another contained in the same data base of a Cherokee 6 fully loaded that suffered an engine failure on takeoff from Hamilton Island. All died when the pilot lost control trying to turn back.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200601688.aspx
With twin engine GA aircraft the essential thing to flight is maintaining better than the single engine best rate of climb speed or "blue line". For most pilots in that class of aircraft it is the go/no go speed. Engine failure below it then close throttles and stop or land despite the probable consequences of an airstrip overrun. Better that than a loss of control in flight. The blue line speed is for a lot of pilots their gear up speed and if an engine failure occurs you do the PHASE 1 checks and attempt to fly away. Temperature and weight may conspire against that but it can be done.
Your comment about the coupling problem would suggest a VMCA problem and there is no way any pilot should be there in flight but perhaps I misunderstood your comment.
Hope some of this helps.
Last edited by PLovett; 6th Oct 2006 at 00:35. Reason: Spelling and afterthought
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMCA? I’m not familiar with this abbreviation.
I am aware that simply quoting the title brings to mind multiple factors such as aircraft type, etc etc; however I am just trying to string together some basis for my project.
Something which is important to me is defining engine failure after takeoff. From brakes release to the minimum safety altitude. Surely then turning back with such a height to land reciprocal, given adequate / satisfactory wind velocities etc, would be an option?
Any opinions here?
I am aware that simply quoting the title brings to mind multiple factors such as aircraft type, etc etc; however I am just trying to string together some basis for my project.
Something which is important to me is defining engine failure after takeoff. From brakes release to the minimum safety altitude. Surely then turning back with such a height to land reciprocal, given adequate / satisfactory wind velocities etc, would be an option?
Any opinions here?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMCA? I’m not familiar with this abbreviation.
In real terms below this speed the aircraft cannot be kept either straight or from rolling towards the inoperative engine. You will run out of rudder and aileron and the aircraft will turn into a smoking hole in the ground.
The decision to abandon flight after takeoff but before blue line is contentious with some pilots. A Cessna "Pilot Safety and Warning Supplements" booklet that I have recommends retracting the undercarriage and continuing the flight (also doing the PHASE 1 actions!). A friend of mine who has many thousands of hours in general aviation multi-engine aircraft also uses this. The company I work for uses blue line as its go/no go speed and the speed where the undercarriage is retracted. Given the conditions where we fly it is unlikely that an aircraft would be saved by trying to fly it away with an engine failure below blue line.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a multi engined aircraft, then there shouldn't be any need to turn back.
With a light twin e.g. Seneca, which can have poor SE capability - I remember a figure of 15nm to get to 1000AAL at max wt - you would either climb to altitude and return in the circuit or land ahead.
The big difficulty with turning back in a single or light twin is you are turning a lot more than 180 degrees as you have to get lined up with the runway.
To do this quickly - in a single you are time limited - you need a very high bank angle. This will put your stall speed up quite a lot with the increased load factor, so you have to really drop the nose of the aircraft to do it.
This is not for the faint hearted!
Try it on a flight sim on a PC and you will see it is difficult - I wouldn't do it
With a light twin e.g. Seneca, which can have poor SE capability - I remember a figure of 15nm to get to 1000AAL at max wt - you would either climb to altitude and return in the circuit or land ahead.
The big difficulty with turning back in a single or light twin is you are turning a lot more than 180 degrees as you have to get lined up with the runway.
To do this quickly - in a single you are time limited - you need a very high bank angle. This will put your stall speed up quite a lot with the increased load factor, so you have to really drop the nose of the aircraft to do it.
This is not for the faint hearted!
Try it on a flight sim on a PC and you will see it is difficult - I wouldn't do it
One of the biggest factors in deciding to turn back in a single is the length of the runway. With 2000m and a modest breeze you might make it. With 800m you certainly would not.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big IF is the question of making it back to the field. This depends on your height and/or speed. It's a useful exercise to go to altitude and set yourself up in the take-off configuration, at your usual climb speed, then work out how long it takes for a 180 (at 40 - 45 degrees of bank) and how much height you lose in the turn. That determines your minimum height to attempt the turn. Try it for 90 degrees too - so you can work out where you have to be to try anything more than straight ahead.
And before you line up each flight, brief yourself on what you'd do in the event of an EFATO. What height to turn (and which way - preferably into wind)? Where are there places to land off the airfield? Get a briefing from someone who knows the area and have a look at an aerial photo if it's not your local field. And work out what vital actions to do in the few seconds between the failure happening and it becoming an unrecoverable disaster.
The most important in a single are:
1 Fly the plane - don't let it stall - keep the nose down and the speed up
2 Fly the plane - keep it balanced with rudder
3 Throttle to idle
4 Think about gear and flaps - up or down - and how long to make the change?
5 Fuel & Switches off (after Mayday call, if you have time)
6 Fly the plane
7 Good luck!
And remember, if you can walk away, it's a good landing. If they can use the plane again afterwards, it's an excellent landing! (and, for the record, I didn't walk away from mine...if fact walking unaided took 6 months. But I survived, thank God).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: pub
Age: 41
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic
Have a look into accident reports where this was the cause, G-ARWE and G-BGJL spring to mind, but there will have been a lot more. Always interesting reading with lots of points to mention.
Have a look into accident reports where this was the cause, G-ARWE and G-BGJL spring to mind, but there will have been a lot more. Always interesting reading with lots of points to mention.
Happy Jack 260,
You say:
Surely it also depends on how far away the field is i.e. how long the runway is, or how big the airfield is or, if you like, how far have I travelled from the field to reach 900'.
I usually fly from a field which is 800m long and not much wider than the runway. There is no way I could reach the field with an EFAT at 900' unless there was a very strong wind which might make landing downwind a bit dicey.
Flying from, say EGHH, I could probably just about make it back to the runway but could easily make it onto the airfield. However, in recent years there have been two disastrous failures to do so there.
This shows the importance of your advice to:
In my view one should be reviewing it continuously throughout the climb, as one does on a glider launch when this is a much more likely event. This discussion is a timely reminder for me to make sure that I do.
Anyway, it is always good to get advice from those who have experienced it for real. I hope that you fully recovered now.
You say:
The big IF is the question of making it back to the field. This depends on your height and/or speed.
I usually fly from a field which is 800m long and not much wider than the runway. There is no way I could reach the field with an EFAT at 900' unless there was a very strong wind which might make landing downwind a bit dicey.
Flying from, say EGHH, I could probably just about make it back to the runway but could easily make it onto the airfield. However, in recent years there have been two disastrous failures to do so there.
This shows the importance of your advice to:
And before you line up each flight, brief yourself on what you'd do in the event of an EFATO.
Anyway, it is always good to get advice from those who have experienced it for real. I hope that you fully recovered now.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also agree your suggestion of the continuous "what if" self-brief on climb-out - something I do now, if only out of fear of another experience!!
PPRuNe Handmaiden
If you're really keen and have a bit of time, dig out the investigation and analysis of the King Air crash at Sydney Airport in the early '80s. It's a litany of what not to do post EFATO.
It's chilling reading.
It's chilling reading.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a multi engined aircraft, then there shouldn't be any need to turn back.
With a light twin e.g. Seneca, which can have poor SE capability - I remember a figure of 15nm to get to 1000AAL at max wt - you would either climb to altitude and return in the circuit or land ahead
With a light twin e.g. Seneca, which can have poor SE capability - I remember a figure of 15nm to get to 1000AAL at max wt - you would either climb to altitude and return in the circuit or land ahead
As for "turn backs" post engine failure in a single. The RAF used (still do?) to do those in the Bulldog BUT it required skill practice and even then was a high risk manouver. For the average PPL it would almost inevitably be fatal so follow the training and land straight ahead or as near as poss.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Office
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't like to sound harsh, but may I suggest that you (the opening poster) familiarise yourself with aircraft performance matters before venturing into the SOPs etc? VMCA is one of the basic stuff... You will need at last some basic understanding of those things before you can constructively study it in a project.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regards,
Antony
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit upon first glance one could be easily mistaken for believing this topic has a hard and fast answer. My personal opinion is that no is not the answer to turning back, although I agree that in some cases there is no way that turning back could be safe.
The trouble is, as with a lot of aspects in life - the human.
As much as we plan such an event, we all suffer a few moments of shock before consciously thinking through what needs to be done. This "human" error is something that we can only minimise through prior training and development. However still in what we happily call a developed industry, EFATO are still catching some of us out. My thoughts on this are around the following:
1) Weather - current ambient conditions at TO
2) Airfield characteristics and surroundings
3) Training
4) Single + Multi crew reactions
Unfortunately I believe that all of these interact so much, that you need almost to be lucky to get all ticks in the boxes. If you don’t the chain is broken and emergences such as EFATO becomes a bit more of a problem.
The trouble is, as with a lot of aspects in life - the human.
As much as we plan such an event, we all suffer a few moments of shock before consciously thinking through what needs to be done. This "human" error is something that we can only minimise through prior training and development. However still in what we happily call a developed industry, EFATO are still catching some of us out. My thoughts on this are around the following:
1) Weather - current ambient conditions at TO
2) Airfield characteristics and surroundings
3) Training
4) Single + Multi crew reactions
Unfortunately I believe that all of these interact so much, that you need almost to be lucky to get all ticks in the boxes. If you don’t the chain is broken and emergences such as EFATO becomes a bit more of a problem.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ENGLAND, BUT IN ASIA NOW
Age: 34
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well on my opinion I think that an engine failure should be avoided at all costs, even though most flying schools have really old battered and worn out aircrafts which will still be used. But if you have an engine failure at low altitude such as 6-900ft I would just ignore the transponder and just give a breif small radio call with a mayday and your callsign, as they would know where you are. And just land the god damn thing on the best thing you can find, such as a nice green field which we all love to see. If you have altitude lik 1500ft to 2000ft then you can do a short circuit and land back on the runway, as most airports such as kissimmee airport in US don't have clear green lands for quite far away, so instead if there was an engine failure you would be going into the town centre or buildings. But do all your checks properly and fly the plane properly as if it was your baby then nothing should really happen.
BRI ^^
BRI ^^
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want to be able to walk away. If you have two engines you will be able to fly away if you follow the right steps regarding aircraft handling/speed. (But there are different certification requirements for transport category aircraft and light twins). A single engine aircraft is heading down; it is just a matter of where it will land. A high-performance single engine aircraft (military jet trainer) may be able to complete a turnback procedure, but a light single GA aircraft will only have the choice of a small turn (<90*) and gliding to the landing area. In almost every case, if the aircraft was in controlled flight the crash is survivable. Keep cool!
