Night Engine Failures

lancefisher said:
I wasn't aware that Sectionals depicted meadows, what's the symbol for that?
Click to expand...

I don't think there ever was a symbol for meadows. Their aquisition as a destination under the circumstances being discussed is contingent largely upon prefight review of ones route on the sectional chart combined with intelligence gathered beforehand by various other means.

Seriously though, I doubt that I could make much use of a sectional while descending through the clag in a mountainous area. For one thing if I can't see the ground and I'm not on an airway I think it would be pretty tough to line up with a depicted road or creek because it's not going to be all that obvious exactly where you are on the chart. Besides that, while a road or creek is no doubt a better place to touch down than the face of a cliff, I don't think that such places are odds on favorites for a successful off airport landing either. In any case I think I could do as well using the relative terrain on my 296 and the absolute terrain shading on my MFD. Neither has the contour lines found on a sectional but both units do display roads relative to the airplane's position so lining up would be a lot easier IMO.

It would be interesting to try this under the hood sometime and see how it really would work out.
Click to expand...

Did I mention the benefits of GPS yet? They're great when they're working and the proper info has been previously waypointed in.
 
You guys have just spent 161 posts discussing something that happens statistically once in nearly never. According to Lycoming as one source the in-flight shutdown rate on their engines is something like 1:40,000 hours. If you fly a quarter of that time in your life time, how much of it will be at night (or low IMC which is the same thing IMHO)? Unless you're a freight dog, maybe 1 - 2% if that? So, now we're down to flying 10,000 hours in a single, maybe 100 - 200 hours of that in your life time at night or in low IMC and so your chances of having one at night are 0.5%, not on any given flight, but in your lifetime.

Having said that, I've had one Lycoming shutdown on me that put me into the Chesapeake Bay and one close friend had his nearly new engine in a Warrior start missing on him at night over Richmond. It didn't shut down and continued to make power so he landed at RIC without incident.

Carry on...
 
PittsDriver said:
You guys have just spent 161 posts discussing something that happens statistically once in nearly never. According to Lycoming as one source the in-flight shutdown rate on their engines is something like 1:40,000 hours. If you fly a quarter of that time in your life time, how much of it will be at night (or low IMC which is the same thing IMHO)? Unless you're a freight dog, maybe 1 - 2% if that? So, now we're down to flying 10,000 hours in a single, maybe 100 - 200 hours of that in your life time at night or in low IMC and so your chances of having one at night are 0.5%, not on any given flight, but in your lifetime.

Having said that, I've had one Lycoming shutdown on me that put me into the Chesapeake Bay and one close friend had his nearly new engine in a Warrior start missing on him at night over Richmond. It didn't shut down and continued to make power so he landed at RIC without incident.

Carry on...
Click to expand...
Well, it IS "Hangar Talk" or hangar flying...

Oh, did you by any chance log that? :D
 
Dave: I can certainly see how flying in the area you do, this could be helpful. There could also be a partial power loss where you'd have to pick a drift down point. If you're constantly flying over or around one area, I could see how your situational awareness could certainly be improved with your method.

In my case, where I'm headed long distances in different directions with months between flying the same route, this would be pretty challenging. Many times, I'm scrambling to find a way point on the IFR charts when being re-routed and can get behind the plane. :dunno:

Best,

Dave
 
PittsDriver said:
You guys have just spent 161 posts discussing something that happens statistically once in nearly never. According to Lycoming as one source the in-flight shutdown rate on their engines is something like 1:40,000 hours. If you fly a quarter of that time in your life time, how much of it will be at night (or low IMC which is the same thing IMHO)? Unless you're a freight dog, maybe 1 - 2% if that? So, now we're down to flying 10,000 hours in a single, maybe 100 - 200 hours of that in your life time at night or in low IMC and so your chances of having one at night are 0.5%, not on any given flight, but in your lifetime
Click to expand...

Well your numbers don't fit me, I think my night+ (relatively) low IMC comes out to at least 5% of my flying. BTW with your 0.5% number it would seem that one in two hundred pilots would experience a night/LIFR engine failure in their lifetime (which seems rather high to me).
 
I have a nice long night flight planned Friday across the desert (mmmm). See route. Taking the Viking. If I go direct, and vfr I can do it non-stop assuming bio needs can be controlled and winds are agreeable. Should leave just before dark and its about 5hrs.
What will I do to help my chances if the fan quits? If I go direct (airspace permitting), how high will I have to be? (Will I need the bottle?) Will direct put me over hours of rough terrain, or will minor deviations allow me to follow highways and flatland? What is your risk tolerance on this? What things would you carry with you, or check on the airplane before leaving? (you know how I like the theoretical but love the practical, the 'real'.)
 

Attachments

  • FriNov7th.JPG
    FriNov7th.JPG
    51.5 KB · Views: 16
Well, Dave,

First let me say that I look forward to meeting you at Marfa one day. Planning to be there end of Dec with Tony and Gang to hang with Burt so I hope you are around.

I've pretty much made myself the parachute fool on this thread but that's what I'd take. Add to that a survival vest with associated paraphernalia.

I'm not saying that if the fan quits I immediately jump. If there is no decently visible road or runway within gliding distance I'd certainly consider it once I'm down to a couple thousand AGL.

Not saying you couldn't survive a night crash landing but I bet it would hurt if you did.

Either that or cyanide capsules. (just kidding about the cyanide capsules)

Matt
 
Looks like the moon rises mid afternoon, will set after I land and I figure will be visible in the front windscreen most of the flight. Should be waxing gibbous and the USNO site says 66% illumination; pretty good lighting. All contingent on clear skies which would not be uncommon for that route (and is forecast). -so some starlighting too, good for seeing mountain silhouettes.
Will have city lights passing El Paso, phx off to my left, then Vegas at destination.
(PS on the parachutes..we have three aboard, not sure that would work this trip, Matt. Maybe if I was alone. See you next month!)

PS this why Im going:
http://www.aviationnation.org/
 
Last edited:
lancefisher said:
Well your numbers don't fit me, I think my night+ (relatively) low IMC comes out to at least 5% of my flying. BTW with your 0.5% number it would seem that one in two hundred pilots would experience a night/LIFR engine failure in their lifetime (which seems rather high to me).
Click to expand...

1:200 10,000 hour, single engine pilots - not many pilots will make that mark but those that do probably have a story or two to tell. And it probably is worth noting that being a pilot and flying single engine aircraft is one thing, but it's what you do with it that exposes you to more or less risk. You obviously are slightly outside the characterization I used for the dreaded "most pilots" assumption. Furthermore, to say that even 1:200 10,000 hour pilots will see this happen makes a whole host of assumptions that many pilots don't fit in to. Some instrument rated pilots will spend their entire lives flying and never fly in low or night IMC.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say that this isn't an interesting discussion. Heck, one of the most valuable things good pilots do is get informed about options and strategies on the ground so that they can call on them in the heat of the moment. I was just thinking about interjecting a perspective on the risk that might have motivated the question to begin with and that's an equally interesting and related discussion.

In the final analysis, it's all about hitting the softest thing you can with the least amount of energy/speed. After that, I'd probably aim for the parking lot of a trauma center...
 
Moon light is a big plus! And yea, it's hard to come up with 3 parachutes and imagine getting everyone out the door on time. What a nightmare that would be... "Yes I love you honey but JUMP OUT OF THE FREEKING AIRPLANE. YES I KNOW ITS DARK, NOW GO FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! We don't have time to argue!
 
Having landed twice in unlit fields at night, I'm not worried. Picking out fields vs trees is pretty easy when you start losing some altitude. Sure, I might miss a haybale or something, but I could just as easily take out a deer on a runway.
 
I could just as easily take out a deer on a runway.
Click to expand...

One night was particularily windy here, few years ago - and I was considering the unlit runway into wind as I had gone around on the main rwy....but then I remembered how we have walkers out on the runways sometimes...and they may not have heard me with the 40kts of wind - so I went to the airport 20mi away that night.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
One night was particularily windy here, few years ago - and I was considering the unlit runway into wind as I had gone around on the main rwy....but then I remembered how we have walkers out on the runways sometimes...and they may not have heard me with the 40kts of wind - so I went to the airport 20mi away that night.
Click to expand...

Low approach to scatter em, then come around for a landing. :yesnod:
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
One night was particularily windy here, few years ago - and I was considering the unlit runway into wind as I had gone around on the main rwy....but then I remembered how we have walkers out on the runways sometimes...and they may not have heard me with the 40kts of wind - so I went to the airport 20mi away that night.
Click to expand...


Yeah, freaking pedestrians play hell on your wings when you whack em.
 
EdFred said:
Having landed twice in unlit fields at night, I'm not worried. Picking out fields vs trees is pretty easy when you start losing some altitude. Sure, I might miss a haybale or something, but I could just as easily take out a deer on a runway.
Click to expand...

For flat landers it's a lot easier than for folks where the black hole is filled 90%+ with big rocks. Fly LA to Vegas during the day, then fly back on a moonless night and tell me if you think you'll walk away.
 
then fly back on a moonless night and tell me if you think you'll walk away.
Click to expand...

I had a pax who preferred night flying as they felt safer. "It looks softer."
 
Henning said:
For flat landers it's a lot easier than for folks where the black hole is filled 90%+ with big rocks. Fly LA to Vegas during the day, then fly back on a moonless night and tell me if you think you'll walk away.
Click to expand...

Taos to Vegas isn't much better. Northwestern NM is ugly.
 
Henning said:
For flat landers it's a lot easier than for folks where the black hole is filled 90%+ with big rocks. Fly LA to Vegas during the day, then fly back on a moonless night and tell me if you think you'll walk away.
Click to expand...

I've landed in 47 of the CONUS I know that pretty much anything west of a line from Las Vegas, NM to Rapid City, SD is pretty inhospitable. Which is why I flew that portion in the day time. :yes:
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
That's a new one for me but I'm quite familiar with PAX having a "head in the sand" attitude and being comfortable.
Click to expand...
Given that they have no way to accurately judge the risks, I'd much rather have them have their heads in the sand that telling me how "dangerous" flying is.
 
sba55 said:
Given that they have no way to accurately judge the risks, I'd much rather have them have their heads in the sand that telling me how "dangerous" flying is.
Click to expand...

They're often very good at that too!
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
They're often very good at that too!
Click to expand...
Really? :confused: You must fly with folks who actually know something about aviation then. I have yet to find a single non-pilot who has any idea about the risks. People are notoriously bad at judging risks independently of what they see on TV or similar sources.
 
Last edited:
sba55 said:
Really? :confused: You must fly with folks who actually know something about aviation then. I have yet to find a single non-pilot who has any idea about the risks. People are notoriously bad at judging risks independently of what they see on TV or similar sources.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic...
 
The method I was taught to deal with a night engine failure is as follows:
Complete the engine fail checklist, fuel, mags, carb heat, etc.
If the engine does not restart, trim for best glide airspeed.
Note your present altitude, maintain best glide with minimum control inputs.
Close your eyes, opening them occasionally to check the altitude.
As you approach 100 ft agl, fully open your eyes to survey the area, if the area looks good proceed to land, slowing to minimun airspeed as you touchdown.
If you don't like what you see at 100 agl, close your eyes......:smile:
 
^^^^^^^^


My strategy is a little different. When I get to 100 agl I turn on my landing light, if I don't like what I see I turn it off. :D
 
Anthony said:
^^^^^^^^


My strategy is a little different. When I get to 100 agl I turn on my landing light, if I don't like what I see I turn it off. :D
Click to expand...


Point well take Anthony, the landig lite will allow you to see the reflective paint on the interstate direction signs and the traffic cones....
 
CESSNADON said:
The method I was taught to deal with a night engine failure is as follows:
Complete the engine fail checklist, fuel, mags, carb heat, etc.
If the engine does not restart, trim for best glide airspeed.
Note your present altitude, maintain best glide with minimum control inputs.
Close your eyes, opening them occasionally to check the altitude.
As you approach 100 ft agl, fully open your eyes to survey the area, if the area looks good proceed to land, slowing to minimun airspeed as you touchdown.
If you don't like what you see at 100 agl, close your eyes......:smile:
Click to expand...

Better trim and establish best glide speed before anything else
 
sdflyer said:
Better trim and establish best glide speed before anything else
Click to expand...

On a dark night where you can't see what you are going into, what good does "best glide" do you? I'd probably turn into the wind and trim for minimum speed that allows me just enough excess energy to allow me to "flare" and minimize my rate of descent and bring me to minimum controllable forward and vertical speed at time of impact. The key to surviving is to minimize the kinetic energy and to absorb it in the dimensionality that the airframe is best suited to absorb what remains.
 
sdflyer said:
L/D max, airspeed vs sink rate speed polar
or you can look at POH :)
Click to expand...

Considering you have to calculate your gross weight into any of that, meh. I'd go stall horn +10, that gives you about 15kts to bleed off at the bottom.
 
Henning said:
Considering you have to calculate your gross weight into any of that, meh. I'd go stall horn +10, that gives you about 15kts to bleed off at the bottom.
Click to expand...

stall horn +10kts not necessarily gives you the best gliding distance or a good safety margin considering adverse weather conditions
 
sdflyer said:
stall horn +10kts not necessarily gives you the best gliding distance or a good safety margin considering adverse weather conditions
Click to expand...

If you can't see where you're going to put it in, what difference does it make how far you glide? The key is to hit what you hit with the minimum energy possible, and that is not best glide speed. Best glide speed will carry you an extra margin of energy above what you need to maintain safe control, and when you smack into the side of that hill you didn't see, 10 kts of energy may be the difference between living and dying, plus you'll have an extra moment to haul aft to burn off more energy and maybe get your airframe in a better position for the impact. Remember, the formula for kinetic energy is Ek= 1/2mv squared, so it is a geometric increase with speed, so minimizing even a few knots on impact has a disproportionately greater effect on increasing your surviveability. If you have a full moon night and it's bright out and you can see a runway or highway to land it on, that's one thing. On a dark moonless night with a high overcast, in IMC, or over rugged terrain, where all your choices are a black hole, we have a whole different situation and keeping a minimum state of energy is the rule to follow. We always have to remember that every situation is unique and must be assessed for what it is and what will allow the greatest chance of survival.
 
Last edited:
However, the human body can withstand more horizontal Gs than veritcal Gs on impact, so maybe a little extra speed to bleed off the sink rate at the end?

All going to depend on terrain methinks.
 
Henning said:
The key is to hit what you hit with the minimum energy possible, and that is not best glide speed. Best glide speed will carry you an extra margin of energy above what you need to maintain safe control, and when you smack into the side of that hill you didn't see, 10 kts of energy may be the difference between living and dying, plus you'll have an extra moment to haul aft to burn off more energy and maybe get your airframe in a better position for the impact. Remember, the formula for kinetic energy is Ek= 1/2mv squared, so it is a geometric increase with speed, so minimizing even a few knots on impact has a disproportionately greater effect on increasing your surviveability. .
Click to expand...


If you think about survivability think about stall. If you stall airplane
close to ground then direct impact to the ground live you less chances for survival. Even if fly over perfectly smooth runway you end up crashing into the ground in a steep angle. In contrast, carry enough speed you can always convert potential energy to kinetic which will help you to cross over last minute obstacle :)
 
sdflyer said:
If you think about survivability think about stall. If you stall airplane
close to ground then direct impact to the ground live you less chances for survival. Even if fly over perfectly smooth runway you end up crashing into the ground in a steep angle. In contrast, carry enough speed you can always convert potential energy to kinetic which will help you to cross over last minute obstacle :)
Click to expand...

Crossing over the last minute obstacle is what often gets people killed because that is where you trade off the last of your energy and stall at altitude. better to adjust to allow the airframe to absorb it in the wing. Avoid the stall until/if you can land normally, maintain minimum kinetic energy, and hope God likes you.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
However, the human body can withstand more horizontal Gs than veritcal Gs on impact, so maybe a little extra speed to bleed off the sink rate at the end?

All going to depend on terrain methinks.
Click to expand...
However, the landing gear has a high ability to absorb energy. I do agree though, you want to go in in a forward direction nose high. Stall horn +10 (approx 15kts above stall on most light planes) is plenty of extra energy to carry in to do whatever you need to situate yourself at the bottom. Basically it's what you carry on a shortfield approach/landing, and rarely do we see those go fatal even when seriously botched.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top