How to safely simulate engine out on climb out ?

That's a good article.

I have an advantage with an angle of attack meter.
 
txflyer said:
Anyone have any hard numbers they'd like to share?

What's your impossible turn floor in your aircraft?
Click to expand...

Here's what I learned, the hard way, at a remote field, many years ago. Whatever your 'planned' or 'tested' or 'trained' number is -- double it in a real life situation.

Currently my hard, tested number for my plane, under solo conditions @ 3500' on a hot day(will not test with others in the plane) is 800'. Which means that unless I have ~ 1600' I'm crashing straight ahead.

When it all goes wrong for real, it's amazing how badly one will perform. This is what is so surprising from the recent DFW crash. A well trained, experienced, and solid pilot with acro experience seems to have failed at the impossible turn. It can happen to me, and I'd much rather plow into a street full of cars at a 6 deg angle, going 50MPH than 50 deg angle going 6 MPH(forward).

YMMV, don't try this at home, closed course, pro driver, objects in mirror, and may cause anal leakage.
 
I tried it in the tb9 and it took me over 1000k feet.
I havent tried it in the cirrus.

I have been doing a ton of thinking about this a a result of this recent loss.

If our engine "quits" none of us are doing the impossible turn.
But lets say your fuel is contaminated and the engine starts running rough.

You have no idea how much power you are making and I can see myself going, ok, I am losing power, I am going to baby it back. I can also see dragging out the reaction time if the engine failure is a process. "Oh crap it is running rough" reaction time plus checking for mixture, prop, carb heat, etc and suddenly you have wasted precious seconds treating an engine failure like an engine issue.

Airspeed indicator is the gospel of course but I can see how the process of engine failure, can lead one to not realize it has failed.

I have gone over the incident Doc refers to in my head a thousand times and asked why would a pilot with over 3k hours in that particular plane and light years experience more than me turn back (If that is what happened) and the thing I keep coming back to is the engine failure is not black and white, it is a process (I think) and that adds variables to this situation.

Edit: These are all just my ponderings. I have not experienced anything near this. Just thinking.
 
In a Sling LSA I demonstrated this (at altitude with engine idling) to require just 300' of altitude loss on the turn back. However, ground speed would be considerable landing back on the runway with the wind behind you... Therefore, I've established that below 600' I will use the runway in front of me, and beyond that altitude I will make the turn back.

The absolute key to success in this maneuver is immediate recognition of engine failure and reduction of the angle of attack and relaxing of the right rudder pressure. This is why every takeoff should be flown with the mindset that the engine is poised to quit at any moment. A two second delay here is the difference between life and death.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Here's what I learned, the hard way, at a remote field, many years ago. Whatever your 'planned' or 'tested' or 'trained' number is -- double it in a real life situation.

Currently my hard, tested number for my plane, under solo conditions @ 3500' on a hot day(will not test with others in the plane) is 800'. Which means that unless I have ~ 1600' I'm crashing straight ahead.

When it all goes wrong for real, it's amazing how badly one will perform. This is what is so surprising from the recent DFW crash. A well trained, experienced, and solid pilot with acro experience seems to have failed at the impossible turn. It can happen to me, and I'd much rather plow into a street full of cars at a 6 deg angle, going 50MPH than 50 deg angle going 6 MPH(forward).

YMMV, don't try this at home, closed course, pro driver, objects in mirror, and may cause anal leakage.
Click to expand...



I'll keep that in mind to double it.

I know you're right that in a real situation confusion and hesitation will undoubtedly take it's toll. Precious seconds wasted that a simulation just can't replicate because you're prepared.

Next time I go up I will play with bank angles and the angle of attack meter and see what I can do then double it for pre-flight checklist. :)
 
Pull to idle, best glide speed. First try at pattern altitude and when you've completed the turn, the difference between pattern altitude, and altitude remaining is what you've got. The best scenario is in calm wind. Remember that when you take-off on a wind favored runway and make you're turn, you'll lose headwind and descend faster. NEVER kill the engine (that's just stupid).
 
SbestCFII said:
Pull to idle, best glide speed. First try at pattern altitude and when you've completed the turn, the difference between pattern altitude, and altitude remaining is what you've got. The best scenario is in calm wind. Remember that when you take-off on a wind favored runway and make you're turn, you'll lose headwind and descend faster. NEVER kill the engine (that's just stupid).
Click to expand...

Uh, no.
 
Training and practice make a pilot proficient. Sometimes straight ahead is no bargain. Other times it may be the best option. The deciding factor could be terrain. It could be altitude. Lots of variables, no set answers. It makes sense that a pilot should be able to react appropriately according to his situation and surroundings. Training and practice.
 
I have practiced this at a closed air force base near our home field. Slow flight over the runway and simulate takeoff. In the c150 I can make it back to the airport environment from 500ft agl. I practice at 2000 ft agl for a better safety margin.
 
Mike5250 said:
I have practiced this at a closed air force base near our home field. Slow flight over the runway and simulate takeoff. In the c150 I can make it back to the airport environment from 500ft agl. I practice at 2000 ft agl for a better safety margin.
Click to expand...


At full gross and a high DA then double it...
 
txflyer said:
I'll keep that in mind to double it.

I know you're right that in a real situation confusion and hesitation will undoubtedly take it's toll. Precious seconds wasted that a simulation just can't replicate because you're prepared.

Next time I go up I will play with bank angles and the angle of attack meter and see what I can do then double it for pre-flight checklist. :)
Click to expand...

I think what I discovered is actually more task saturation in a small time window. Here ya go:

The engine is not producing power, but the prop is spinning, so in a matter of seconds(as speed bleeds off rapidly while climbing) you need to do the following:

1 Pitch the plane to best glide.
2 Perform(not just read, but actually DO IT) from memory the engine out emer checklist.
3 Check your altitude.
4 Decide on your options list.
5 Pick one.
6 Implement turn back, turn side, find a spot, straight ahead.
7 Maintain speed, and begin flare to land somewhere, somehow, and avoid anything that is moving(people, cars, etc).

My choice was an open field at about 35deg to the right. So I turned, then pitched, then put in the most right rudder I could, and slipped down toward the ground. About half way down, while trying to do the engine out checklist, and sliding into the pax seat, I realized I didn't have flaps out, so I hit that switch, and my descent became - shall we say, rather aggressive. You really can't imagine how fast that ground fills the windscreen in engine out, full slip, deploying flaps. I went into a gravel and scrub area about 75' with one blown tire, on the right of course.
 
Depends on the airplane. I'd try it in a taylorcraft or a champ from one thousand feet but no less. Simply go to 2500 3000 feet and try it. Simple. Or.....try what the instructor with 3000 hours tried in NYS in 2006. She pulled the throttle on the student five hundred feet after takeoff. Stalled . Killed herself, injured the left seat student badly. He survived. Taylorcraft was found to have worn plugs and possible old car gas. I was there, it went down very quickly as she tried to bank into an empty field, not even try to return. In seconds she was dead. No shoulder harnesses, she became the airbag as it hit hard on her side.
Student reported she said " I've got it" tried to add throttle but it quit.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
Depends on the airplane. I'd try it in a taylorcraft or a champ from one thousand feet but no less. Simply go to 2500 3000 feet and try it. Simple. Or.....try what the instructor with 3000 hours tried in NYS in 2006. She pulled the throttle on the student five hundred feet after takeoff. Stalled . Killed herself, injured the left seat student badly. He survived. Taylorcraft was found to have worn plugs and possible old car gas. I was there, it went down very quickly as she tried to bank into an empty field, not even try to return. In seconds she was dead. No shoulder harnesses, she became the airbag as it hit hard on her side.
Student reported she said " I've got it" tried to add throttle but it quit.
Click to expand...



I had a situation with a CFI practicing engine out in a P-140. We idled all the way down from about 3000' to a field I picked out. The CFI said "that's pretty good" and when he shoved in the throttle it died. :eek:

He was doing the re-start and I just kept flying the plane fully intending to set it down where we were going. I've never seen anyone push levers and primers and start key so fast.

When he got it re-started I could count the wires on the barb wire fence we were about to pass over. As soon as we were back climbing he said "that's good enough, let's head back to the field." :lol:
 
txflyer said:
Before I try this for real I want some input.

What I want to do is figure out my "impossible turn" altitude.

If I start at a safe altitude and put the plane in take off attitude then pull the mixture ... what I want to do is stop the prop and simulate an engine seize for real. Then turn 180 degrees and record the altitude loss, distance, and time. Will the prop stop? How do I set this up? Should I have a safety pilot and parachute's? Has anyone done this? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I was at a WINGS safety seminar just the other day. the program was on take offs and landings. the presenter actually talked about "the impossible turn" and suggested that every pilot should know the capability of the plane they usually fly when it comes to 'the impossible turn'. so here's what I did just the other day.

I fly a Cessna 162 (Skycatcher) where rotation is 50kts and Vy is 62kts. we were very close to the maximum gross weight of 1320-lbs. I had my instructor with me as the school I rent from requires a mini-check ride every 6-months. I was doing a series of soft field landings and take offs at a grass strip and had previously discussed with the instructor my desire to see just how impossible the turn back would be.

I lifted off on 27 into a right quartering head wind (10@300) and after capturing Vy climbed to 1000' ft above the ground and pulled the power. I leveled off and captured 70kts (best glide for the 162) and thenexecuted a 30-deg right turn. the 162 glides pretty well.my intention was just to see if I could make it back to the field and not actually land and I did with altitude to spare. when I crossed abeam of the departure end of 27 I was 600' above the ground at 70kts.

so now I know that under those conditions in that airplane i can make it back to the field but I plan to execute that maneuver again and actually attempt a landing.
 
I think the next step is to be OVER the numbers at the DER, not abeam.

It's significantly harder.

Unless it's a short runway, you won't be able to glide to the far end and then land, from 600 feet.

That is, unless there is a parallel runway or taxiway, or at least a level field, to land in from abeam the numbers.
 
MAKG1 said:
I think the next step is to be OVER the numbers at the DER, not abeam.

It's significantly harder.

Unless it's a short runway, you won't be able to glide to the far end and then land, from 600 feet.

That is, unless there is a parallel runway or taxiway, or at least a level field, to land in from abeam the numbers.
Click to expand...

if I would've had to land at THAT field I am confident I could have made it. 2600' grass field and I was still at 600' as I passed abeam the end of 27. I wasn't more than 100' north of the strip. but I hear what you're saying.
 
I've practiced this over a long straight bridge starting at 3k. To get back aligned with the bridge I loose about 800 feet using 45* of bank and 1/4 flaps (in a Cardinal the first quarter flaps is straight back and used on takeoff).

In my pre takeoff brief, I say an engine failure below 1000 feet will result in a straight ahead landing but above 1000 feet we will turn (into the wind) to RTB.
 
I practiced this a couple dozen times at altitude, in a 172P, 180 HP, after having read up on it - just search impossible turn, and ignore the "never try it" hysterics.

Anyway, in the 172, I settled on 800 feet, the tear drop turn back, and not/not less than 45 degrees bank.

After some practice, did it at my home drome, from a real takeoff, and what I noticed:

1. The visual clues are startling, fairly steep bank, ground close by, etc.
2. Found myself giving close attention to AS.
3. You gottta push HARD to pitch to best glide, as AS decays rapidly when you cut

A little bad technique eats altitude quckly; pitch right away, be aggressive in the turns. You don't have to make the runway - a flat spot or taxiway works. 800 feet, with a light headwind worked OK. I might try it from lower, with more headwind; but that may be arm chair quaterbacking, too - not sure I really would, unless the airport environment had a bunch of flat area I could "divert" to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top