How to take the bite of engine failure on takeoff

M

MotleyCrew

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
Motley Flight Crew
How to take the bite off an engine failure on takeoff

Hi everybody,

I'm sure I must be missing something here - or else I would not understand why any single engine pilot would depart a runway differently. After 15 years of piloting single-engine wing things, I have not had an engine failure in flight - but on the ground. And - guess what - it gets you thinking. What if the engine fails aloft? What if it's your only engine? Or, even worse, what if your only engine decides to quit on you on your initial climb out?

We're trained to land straight ahead. Bummer.

I guess this is the single point of most miserable failure in any single engine aircraft - engine failure on takeoff. Countless lives were lost in attempts to turn back to the runway.

Here's my thoughts on it: Why not depart the runway with a procedure turn? That way, you would already, while you still have normal power, begin the turn back to the runway should the unfortunate event occur that you would lose engine power. I would then continue to climb straight over the runway I had just departed from, and by the end of the runway, I should have sufficient height to turn back even gliding.

I can't even start to think of all the potential benefits:

1) You start your turn as you still have power. The chances of a stall/spin are lower than when turning while windmilling.

2) If, as in 99% of cases, everything goes well, you just climb straight along the runway and you're on your way, maybe having invested an additional two minutes for your procedure turn. I would think a cheap insurance.

3) If the sucker does quit on you, all you have to do is land straight ahead - but it will be straight ahead onto the runway

4) If the sucker quits on you later in the climb, you will already have climbed sufficiently to simply enter a downwind and land without power.

Once en route, your options are many. But a procedure turn right after departure, on initial climb, and climb on the back course along the departure runway is exactly what I would do.

What am I missing here? Why wouldn't any single engine jockey do it just like that?
 
Last edited:
My view is that sure, it's possible to help, but the risk is pretty small in the first place. There's what, at most about 20-30 seconds where you aren't low enough to land on remaining runway, but not high enough to turn back?? I'm perfectly fine accepting that miniscule amount of risk.

And to your comment about reducing stall/spins... I think that's pretty baseless. Takeoff, especially during a failure, is an extremely overwhelming time. Considering pretty often people stall/spin on departure in in a working aircraft, how do you think adding more maneuvering will help that high-stress time?

And to top it off, I think adding this segment to a pattern would also make it quite a bit more difficult for traffic flow and spotting other traffic. Just sounds like a huge cost of confusion and complications for the very small benefit. Like I said, myself and obviously every other SE pilot all are just fine with the minor risk that is gone in a few seconds.
 
First, welcome to POA!

Second, do you actually do this? Sure, it offers a miniscule benefit in theory, but seems as though it opens up additional cans of worms (additional maneuvering during a high-workload time, nonstandard traffic pattern operation, plus I doubt this would ever be approved at a towered field).

There are a couple airports out of which I fly that landing straight ahead in the event of a low-altitude engine failure on takeoff would probably render you dead. But, a turn of 20 degrees or so in either direction opens up far more resources. I suspect this is the case with many, if not most, airports.

I do accept the risk that if I experience a complete engine failure from about 200-1000 feet AGL on takeoff, it's likely to be a bad day. I also do everything in my power to try to ensure that won't happen. But yes, it is a risk, for certain.
 
Not really enough information to say one way or another.
Having experimented in a number of aircraft, with a 5000 foot runway and doing your crosswind turn between 500 to 700 feet will do about the same thing for many single engine aircraft. In general if you are turning crosswind when it fails you can make it back. If you haven't started turning then don't plan on going back.

But the actual answer is if you haven't practiced it in your aircraft at gross weight at a runway of the length you are taking off from, don't try to turn back unless you know you have a large margin for error. Emergencies are the worst time to try new stuff. Try to limit you emergencies to stuff you have practiced and make your emergency landing as normal as possible.

Brian
 
A complete course reversal, as in flying the upwind leg in the wrong direction? Sounds like a bad idea. That's a lot of maneuvering at a very low altitude. Plus, it takes energy to turn, energy that could be giving you altitude instead. By the time you have completed a procedure turn, I'd think you'd be at pattern altitude anyways.

If we're doing something besides a typical departure, I'd much rather see a procedure in which a pilot departs the runway at an angle and picks up a track parallel to the runway, on the downwind side. This would allow the pilot to make it back to the runway with only a 180 degree turn, instead of the very time/altitude consuming teardrop that is required to land on something directly behind you.
 
Kinda dependent on the field but unless the straight ahead course puts you in large trees or a granite rock face, you generally **** yourself trying to turn back. Mild course corrections to put you in the putting green of the golf course vs the sand trap or rough is advisable.
 
Maybe I am missing something, but I cannot see many reasons to do a procedure turn so low. My main concern is that in many of the airports I fly out of doing a procedure turn that low would put me in line with possibly hitting some of the buildings on the airport property or the trees on the side of the runway. I think may be I am missing what you are proposing however. My main concern is that when I did my personal evaluation of what it would take in altitude to do an impossible turn I found that with my prop at full idle the best I could do was 700 feet to do the 180 degree turn. I was taught to start my crosswind at about 400 ft agl and so by the time I am at 700 feet I am usually about 60 or 70% through my turn, and so the 180 degrees would bring me in line with the runway. That being said this was with a working prop and me prepared to do the turn. In real life I am absolutely certain I would need quite a bit more altitude. Also the one thing that is missing is my actual position in relationship to my imaginary runway when I complete the turn. I am not too certain I would be over the runway once I completed the turn. So for me 1000 feet AGL is the minimum, and even then I have decided I really need a good reason to attempt the turn and not land in the nearest best area that I KNOW I could make. As far as I am concerned, I would rather bend some metal landing on an adequate field, but live another day to fly, than take what I perceive to be a huge risk to avoid bending the metal.

That is just my own personal bias on the situation. Others I am sure will find many holes in my logic.
 
1984 teterboro n.j. 201 mooney, annualed 4days before. Aircraft quit 200 feet in the air, gear coming up. IF I had requested an intersection takeoff I would have died, plunging into apartment buildings. Flew from maryland to teterboro without any problem. Checked boost pump.....on. Quickly lowered gear, and as they went 3 green, I touched back down. Stopped just short of fence which had tag reading ....page fence co. Bayone n.j. Cause.....when annualed AI had neglected to check final fuel filter under pilots seat. N.j. Shop said it was full of crap ( water-fuel) like jelly. Mooneys were known for this if tied down outside as this was for three months. The gas caps were designed poorly. So......try to know history of what you fly and who works on it! MANY accidents of this type occur on takeoff! (Read faa accident reports). Lots of people die this way especially those who try a 180 . Landing straight ahead IS about your only alternative. No matter how good you are you could easily be in big trouble. The other hand wringer is the recent IFR rated pilot ( or one who seldom flys IFR) who kills self and others as airplane gets waayyyyy ahead of their abilitys.
 
I want to see someone attempt a "procedure turn takeoff" at Gaston's, Glenwood Springs, or Aspen. Heck let's throw in Leadville while we're at it.

That ought to be enough entertainment to last a while.
 
denverpilot said:
I want to see someone attempt a "procedure turn takeoff" at Gaston's, Glenwood Springs, or Aspen. Heck let's throw in Leadville while we're at it.

That ought to be enough entertainment to last a while.
Click to expand...

I was going to say it differently but same suggestion - try it with an aircraft that doesn't climb so well...yes, you can turn but no, you really don't want to because the aircraft stops climbing and that isn't helping at all.
 
Fly a twin.
Then you only have twice the probability of an engine failure.
And the probability of a flat spin if it happens below Vmc.
And twice the fuel burn.
And three times the maintenance expenses.
And bigger landing fees.
So, what's not to like?

Just get used to the reality that you will crash when the fan quits - or give up flying.
 
Not sure I'm crazy about your theory on take off.do a complete run up ,preflight,and then play the odds . I own a slow climber so I'm not crazy about doing a lot of turns near the ground.
 
If you perceive an altitude range such as 100 to 700 feet to be a "danger zone" after take-off why would you want to execute a maneuver that would prolong your exposure to it?
 
Dr. O said:
....Just get used to the reality that you will crash when the fan quits - or give up flying.
Click to expand...

I've had two full engine failures, one was about 300-400AGL. I could not turn back to the runway with my available altitude, I started a flaps up turn away from the threat (trees ahead, city to the right), I knew there were fields on crosswind but did not have the altitude to make them, kept the turn coming getting a little slow, got the plane over a riverbed, put the nose down to get some energy, rounded out as I pulled full flaps and touched down in a 3 point.

Aside from being a little dusty the plane didn't even have a scratch.

What I would recommend is figuring all the places you can land the plane before your takeoff, staying fluid in your plans and trying to relax. Look all the way left then right, the place you initially think "THERE!" is probably your best bet.

Always landing straight ahead is a dumb azz idea for many reasons.
 
Huh? I don't get it. By the time you get turned around, you're going to be a long ways away from the runway (offset to the side). Plus, by the time you get clear around and lined back up, in most airplanes, you won't have any runway remaining to land on. Have you actually tried this?
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
...I think adding this segment to a pattern would also make it quite a bit more difficult for traffic flow and spotting other traffic. Just sounds like a huge cost of confusion and complications for the very small benefit. Like I said, myself and obviously every other SE pilot all are just fine with the minor risk that is gone in a few seconds.
Click to expand...
Agree on all points.

BTW, many instructors I know (including me) teach landing ahead, but not necessarily straight ahead. I've seen plenty of airports where there's nothing but bad news straight ahead in line with the runway, but where a 15-30 degree turn will find you a pretty good place to have a controlled accident. It's amazing how many pilots when faced with an engine failure (real or simulated) get tunnel vision and don't look left/right for a better place that what's directly in front of them.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
...Always landing straight ahead is a dumb azz idea for many reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't think the "land straight ahead" argument ever meant you couldn't make any turns, at least I never took it that way. It just means not to try a reversal back to the runway. But even that, in some cases you really don't have a choice and even if you can't make the runway turning back towards the airport might be the best action.

I do agree with having a plan, especially now days with Google Earth and smart phones and all. You should be able to have at least a moderate awareness of what you are venturing into and where you're best course might be if a situation like that should present itself.
 
+1 and it's not cheating to look at the surrounding area while you're in the pattern for landing at an unfamiliar airport.

Ron Levy said:
Agree on all points.

BTW, many instructors I know (including me) teach landing ahead, but not necessarily straight ahead. I've seen plenty of airports where there's nothing but bad news straight ahead in line with the runway, but where a 15-30 degree turn will find you a pretty good place to have a controlled accident. It's amazing how many pilots when faced with an engine failure (real or simulated) get tunnel vision and don't look left/right for a better place that what's directly in front of them.
Click to expand...
 
What's fascinating to me is the posting of an all encompassing "suggestion" like this without at least some anecdotal descriptions of how this was flown in x, y, or z airplane in abc conditions and the results were...

I personally can't imagine (doesn't mean it's not possible) a situation where turning in any meaningful way would increase safety in a takeoff. Depending on the airport, Vx or Vy are the logical choices and reducing the climb with a turn won't help. But if there is a situation like that, why not describe it?

Last week I flew when the ceiling was too low for the aerobatics I had planned and so I played with engine outs on t/o. My experiences would have been totally useless for 99.99% of board participants. But I could tell you that my theory that pointing the nose straight down and doing a half roll back to the runway doesn't work worth a flip and adds about 100' to a steep turn return, and is much harder. I climbed to a safe altitude, established a Vx climb, pulled power to idle, counted one-thousand one, 1002, 1003, holding the attitude. The airplane drops the nose a lot with the power reduction but I forced the attitude to remain the same, just in case I somehow choked that badly in a real engine out. I would be likely to go back from 500 feet with a steep turn on the edge of a stall. The runway would be nice, but I mostly would be looking for the open land on the airport.

So what? This is meaningless unless you are flying a YMF, regularly do steep turns and are at my airport where the choices to the South are extremely limited.

I just don't get making broad generalizations without defining the basis.
 
Since the "impossible turn" threads have popped up here and other places I have been looking at things a bit differently to see if I could come up with anything of potential value.

KADS has 7k' runway, so we have some decent options including some fences that would serve as catch-nets, but the boxcars parked on the RR tracks beyond might not be quite as inviting. My Cessna 180 has a big engine and climbs very well, especially with single occupant and partial fuel, so I know that other singles won't be a lot better and most will be worse.

So my idea was to quickly look out the side window at the hangars and other buildings after liftoff and then again every 15 seconds or so to determine exactly where I thought "yep, this is it, I could get it turned around and back on the pavement from here."

Based on that test, I was not encouraged. Looking at those buildings from 600' and thinking about all that would be necessary to get back on the airport caused me to wonder if that altitude is realistic. As of now the answer is no, but I'm planning to continue noodling to learn more.
 
Re: How to take the bite off an engine failure on takeoff

MotleyCrew said:
Hi everybody,

I'm sure I must be missing something here - or else I would not understand why any single engine pilot would depart a runway differently. After 15 years of piloting single-engine wing things, I have not had an engine failure in flight - but on the ground. And - guess what - it gets you thinking. What if the engine fails aloft? What if it's your only engine? Or, even worse, what if your only engine decides to quit on you on your initial climb out?

We're trained to land straight ahead. Bummer.

I guess this is the single point of most miserable failure in any single engine aircraft - engine failure on takeoff. Countless lives were lost in attempts to turn back to the runway.

Here's my thoughts on it: Why not depart the runway with a procedure turn? That way, you would already, while you still have normal power, begin the turn back to the runway should the unfortunate event occur that you would lose engine power. I would then continue to climb straight over the runway I had just departed from, and by the end of the runway, I should have sufficient height to turn back even gliding.

I can't even start to think of all the potential benefits:

1) You start your turn as you still have power. The chances of a stall/spin are lower than when turning while windmilling.

2) If, as in 99% of cases, everything goes well, you just climb straight along the runway and you're on your way, maybe having invested an additional two minutes for your procedure turn. I would think a cheap insurance.

3) If the sucker does quit on you, all you have to do is land straight ahead - but it will be straight ahead onto the runway

4) If the sucker quits on you later in the climb, you will already have climbed sufficiently to simply enter a downwind and land without power.

Once en route, your options are many. But a procedure turn right after departure, on initial climb, and climb on the back course along the departure runway is exactly what I would do.

What am I missing here? Why wouldn't any single engine jockey do it just like that?
Click to expand...

Pilots in the US are trained using procedures included in FAA publications. The FAA has established those procedures as being the safest way to perform various phases flight. They are based on studies as well as accident analysis.
 
Re: How to take the bite off an engine failure on takeoff

Clip4 said:
Pilots in the US are trained using procedures included in FAA publications. The FAA has established those procedures as being the safest way to perform various phases flight. They are based on studies as well as accident analysis.
Click to expand...

Also broad generalizations that don't necessarily fit every situation. What works for my 7GCBC wouldn't have worked for my M20K.
 
ebetancourt said:
What's fascinating to me is the posting of an all encompassing "suggestion" like this without at least some anecdotal descriptions of how this was flown in x, y, or z airplane in abc conditions and the results were....
Click to expand...

In my case, normal takeoff, climbed at vy, engine quit, best glide, 30ish degree turn, nose to get my energy back, rounded out as I was adding full flaps, 3pt landing in softish sand, zero damage.

Aicraft is a 4 place STOL taildragger
 
I think it has a lot to do with the surrounding terrain/obstacles.. At our airport taking off to the north you don't have many options within 30deg left or right of course unless you want to end up in buildings... Some guys have made it a SOP to make a 40deg turn shortly after takeoff which puts them lined up with a nice big field.... If the airport you are departing from has open space off the end of the runway then I don't see the advantage of making any turns until a safe altitude has been reached. I do agree that departing from a short runway with buildings at the end makes no sense to stay on runway heading if better options are within 45 degrees of runway heading.
 
Ron Levy said:
Agree on all points.

BTW, many instructors I know (including me) teach landing ahead, but not necessarily straight ahead. I've seen plenty of airports where there's nothing but bad news straight ahead in line with the runway, but where a 15-30 degree turn will find you a pretty good place to have a controlled accident.
Click to expand...

Or as my old instructor would say... pick a spot you can see out the windshield.

The one time I had pretty much a complete engine failure at takeoff I was fortunately up to about 600' and I had the gear up. Nothing hospitable out the front, I was turning to land on the airport access road but realized I had the time to get it back at least to the taxiway if not the runway.
 
flyingron said:
Or as my old instructor would say... pick a spot you can see out the windshield.

The one time I had pretty much a complete engine failure at takeoff I was fortunately up to about 600' and I had the gear up. Nothing hospitable out the front, I was turning to land on the airport access road but realized I had the time to get it back at least to the taxiway if not the runway.
Click to expand...

Never had it actually quit, but did have oil pressure "drop" (instrumentation failure) to zero at about 100' once. Spent the next few seconds repeating "don't quit, don't quit!" As I maneuvered for the 180
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top