Engine Failure On Takeoff - 2 Cfi's At The Controls

[dhc8fo]

First question (Mauleskinner) - prop should feather immediately, gear maybe takes 7 seconds.

It is a Seminole and I doubt it has autofeather. I ASS-UME you mean they should have been able to recognize and feather it immediately, right??

Second Question: At 75 feet you've already taken off. You should be in a climb mindset.

In my 340, if I had a 10,000 foot runway, my gear would still be down at 75 feet. This is NOT a turbine or jet with excess thrust. It is a piston already at max power. That is why you brief (can't speak for any other plane off the top of my head, but the Cessna manual's emergency is titled something like "Engine Failure Prior to Takeoff (Gear Down or in Transit") any abnormalities after Vr BUT with the gear still down, we will pull the power and land on the remaining runway.

Why these clowns felt it necessary to "see how much runway it takes" is beyond me and completely misses the point.

To try it in the plane, I agree it was not the best judgement, but it is a very VALUABLE experience in the sim.

 

[dhc8fo]

Why do you say, "Pick your landing spot." How about just climbing out after takeoff on 1-engine?

Because the likelihood that the average joe can configure the plane properly and fly it without killing himself is less than it he just put it back on the runway, especially given the LACK of single-engine performance in most all piston twins.

If you have any professional training such as regular Flight Safety or the airlines, you would probably be able to get away with this if you are proficient in that specific aircraft. Throw in the hot day and max gross weight factors, and maybe not.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ok then, the question is: Can this takeoff be made safely following an engine failure at 75 feet?

Comments please.....

Repeated, with emphasis added...

You also have to consider the amount of altitude lost in the time it takes to retract the gear and feather the prop (I'd plan at least 15-20 seconds).

 

[JediNein]

We add together the over 50' obstacle takeoff distance to the over 50' obstacle landing distance and add 50%. That should be a decent runway.

If the runway is too short or faces a school and lots of kids out playing, what the bleep are you doing there?

There are some airports I do not go into. I do not consider them safe. One has absolutely nowhere to land after an engine failure in a single or a multi. The airport manager couldn't keep the crash zones clear so I'm supposed to kill myself in an emergency? No thank you.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Continuing the takeoff

So the question is: Could a pilot with an engine failure in a Seminole at 75 feet AGL with the gear down, continue the takeoff?

The answer is: It all depends.

If the takeoff was from a typical Midwest airport, elevation less than 1000 feet with a temperature resulting in a density altitude of 3000 feet or less, then the answer is that the takeoff could be continued per the POH performance charts and my own single-engine performance experience in this airplane. And if the airplane was lightly loaded with say just two people and half-tanks of fuel, then takeoff could be continued even if the density altitude was up to 4000 feet. All of these scenarios per the POH will produce at least a 200 fpm climb. But whether the pilot tried to abort or continue takeoff, a decision must be made based on sound judgment regarding the two options. As was the case in the aborted takeoff accident, a rushed attempt to land on the takeoff runway can very easily result in a stalled crash landing; therefore, if insufficient runway remains and the area ahead is clear of tall obstructions or rising terrain, then the takeoff could be continued. The correct action is to retract the landing gear then verify and feather the inoperative engine. If the pilot has already attained Vyse (88k) that airspeed should be maintained. If the airspeed is closer to Vxse (82k) then hold that airspeed and do not attempt to accelerate to Vyse until obstacles are cleared. Also, consider that with a lightly loaded airplane, those rates of climb airspeeds should be reduced up to 5k.

Although a positive single engine climb performance is not required for certification of light twins, most such aircraft are capable of sufficient performance to safely continue a straight ahead climb following an engine failure just after takeoff, assuming the same procedures and considerations as shown above. But before a pilot assumes the airplane is capable of safely climbing following an engine out emergency, an in-flight test of single engine performance should be performed during a pilot’s aircraft checkout. That test will always tell the truth and should be done as follows:

• Climb to a simulated hard-deck altitude of 3000 feet AGL.
• Reduce airspeed and lower the landing gear.
• Hold altitude and reduce airspeed to Vr plus a few knots, maybe 10k.
• Apply full power to simulate a takeoff, pitch the airplane for normal climb attitude thus allowing the airplane to accelerate to Vy as is the normal climb profile.
• Upon reaching 50 or 100 feet above the simulated hard-deck, pull the mixture control to cut-off, failing the critical engine (if there is one) abruptly.
• Adjust pitch to maintain Vxse or Vyse, retract landing gear and promptly verify and feather the inoperative engine. (Do not use simulated zero thrust as such settings are inaccurate and thus give false performance results, sometimes positive or sometimes negative.

If the airplane will climb satisfactorily at 3000 feet AGL it can only perform better when at the real and lower field elevation with 3-inches more of manifold pressure, plus the help of ground effect and momentum to aid in performance.

So the message here is don’t always believe magazine articles and other publications that say climb out following an engine failure with the gear down is impossible and that to continue is certain to result in a Vmc upset. It just isn’t so for a properly trained and competent pilot flying most any twin engine airplane at a low enough density altitude. Just retract the gear, feather the failed engine, climb out to a safe altitude and return for a normal single engine landing. You will know by your own tests and the S/E climb charts whether or not the necessary climb performance is available, which it usually is.

When it’s my life or anyone’s life at risk, know the facts. The best advice is to always perform the 3000 foot hard-deck test during any twin engine check-out. In that way you’ll know the truth about your airplane, good or bad, and will be prepared to act by aborting the takeoff or by continuing the climb based on known performance under existing conditions.

Engine failure after takeoff is a task that is tested for any multiengine rating and as an examiner I always test this task using the above 6 steps to set up the scenario. The gear is down because the scenario I brief provides a rough running engine that distracts the pilot thus causing the gear to not be immediately retracted following takeoff. The task is also briefed that the area ahead is nothing but homes and a school with children outdoors. Following the engine failure, the PTS for this task requires that the applicant must reduce drag, in this case by retracting the gear, then must hold Vxse or Vyse, feather the propeller and continue the takeoff. There is no option for an abort in this scenario. In every test I have done (probably 1000) in every type of modern twin, if the applicant performs DECISIVELY AND CORRECTLY, the result is always success and a straight ahead climb of a few hundred feet per minute.

The FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook (AFH) says that if the gear is down, “The chances of maintaining directional control while retracting flaps (if extended), landing gear and feathering the propeller and accelerating are minimal.” All of this may be true, as the AFH says, but only in older underpowered multiengine airplanes with poor single engine performance and with an engine-driven hydraulic pump, where a failure of that engine means the only way to raise the landing gear is to allow the engine to windmill for hydraulic pressure or to use the hand pump. However, unfortunately, the AFH fails to mention that this resignation attitude and need to just give up and crash straight ahead is just NOT TRUE OR NECESSARY for all the other more modern twins. Modern twins have larger engines with much better performance plus they have fast retracting electric-hydraulic landing gear systems.

So does the gear position, up or down, really make a difference in the decision to continue or abort. Not to me. And it shouldn’t make a difference to anyone else if the gear can be moved up or down in seconds. Therefore, decisions to continue should be made on known AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY, not gear position.

Questions – comments.

 

[RefugePilot]

Right technique wrong application.

They went from 360 horse power to 0, very quickly. This would take a major pitch adjustment while trying to maintain the same airspeed. Loosing one engine would cause a significant pitch change, 2 engines a dramatic pitch change.

Chopping the power while at Vx or even worse Vy without pushing the nose over will cause or a dramatic sink rate or even a stall in any airplane. Try it in your trainer at altitude. Have a student Climb at Vy through 3000' AGL at 3100' chop the power and see how they react and how the plane reacts, now put the proximity of the ground and its related fear factor into the equation.

If you wanted to similate the needed pitch change to maintain sufficient airspeed, I would try it at altitude and keep the response needed in mind for the time you will need it.

Overall it was a successfull result, they survived and we have learned a valuable lesson at their expense. I am going to practice a Vx engine failure in a single and simulate that experience in a twin as soon as I can.

Learning from others' mistakes is the cheapest lesson you can have.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I am going to practice a Vx engine failure in a single and simulate that experience in a twin as soon as I can.

Learning from others' mistakes is the cheapest lesson you can have.

Things happen REAL fast when the engine quits at 50 feet and Vx in a single...don't ask me how I know, but no metal was bent

Fly safe!

David

 

[NoPax]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoPax
First question (Mauleskinner) - prop should feather immediately, gear maybe takes 7 seconds.


It is a Seminole and I doubt it has autofeather. I ASS-UME you mean they should have been able to recognize and feather it immediately, right??

I know that Seminoles doesn't have autofeather same way that the gear isn't automatically going to retract into the wells either...I'm not a complete 'tard, however, after brining the lever to feather, the prop should go into feather instantaneously...no delay. Can't imagine they did though, since it was a flawed training exercise.

They went from 360 horse power to 0, very quickly. This would take a major pitch adjustment while trying to maintain the same airspeed. Loosing one engine would cause a significant pitch change, 2 engines a dramatic pitch change.

Very true. I was fortunate enough to start flying at a glider shool, and we'd practice cable snaps/early cable releases, and the first thing you'd do is point the glider at the ground, from about a 25º nose up attitude at around 100'.

Chopping the power while at Vx or even worse Vy without pushing the nose over will cause or a dramatic sink rate or even a stall in any airplane. Try it in your trainer at altitude. Have a student Climb at Vy through 3000' AGL at 3100' chop the power and see how they react and how the plane reacts, now put the proximity of the ground and its related fear factor into the equation.

If you wanted to similate the needed pitch change to maintain sufficient airspeed, I would try it at altitude and keep the response needed in mind for the time you will need it.

First off, I think chopping the power at Vx would be even worse than at Vy...but not by much. Isn't VSSE a limitation on the airplane...

I wouldn't try it at altitude, or anywhere for that matter...just safe to say

"In possibly the worst emergency you may ever face ie loosing an engine at 50 ft, gear down, and you choose to land on remaining runway, it will take a lot of skill, and more runway to save the airplane, and your skin."

Why do people have to prove this?

It's like "this airplane is not approved for aerobatic maneuvers" but people test that one too.

 

[ERAUGrad04]

For starters, I just want to say that this is a great thread.
Now with that said, let me put in my two cents. I agree with just about everything being said here. But I notice that there is one thing that is not really being addressed. When looking at horizontal distance from the point of engine failure (75ft) to the point to stopped on the runway; how long do you think that is? At the point of failure, the airplane does have quite a bit of inertia going upwards and is probably still accelerating. By the time one pushes the nose over and lands on the remaining runway and brings the aircraft to a stop, I would be willing to gamble that we are looking at a total distance that exceeds 3000ft. Now this estimate is for a Seminole. Greatly add to this number if you are in say, a baron or 421. I have around 400hrs of dual given in Seminoles and there was always one question that I would ask to students on departure:" What would you do if the engine quit right now." And "now" happened to be at about 75' with around 2000' or so of runway remaining. And without fail, every student said "I am going to land on the remaining runway." I flew with multiple instructors that said the exact same thing. If they attempted a landing from this position, we would have ended up making scrap out of the ILS antenna if it had been a real failure. And this was almost always in an airplane that was light. In all of these simulated situations (alt, weight, temp, etc.), the airplane would have climbed away at 150-200fpm without trouble. Climb to a safe altitude and return for a more normal approach.
Now with all that said, I think that we need to take a step back to the briefing. In the before takeoff briefing, you should pick a reference point that bears weight in the Go/No Go decision. Pretty much, if the engine quits after this point, were going. But it is important to back up that GO decision with performance charts and your own personal experience in that airplane.
Ok...one last thing. The Seminole POH does state that in the event of an engine failure with sufficient runway remaining, close BOTH throttles to IDLE and land on the remaining runway. In my opinion, this statement is setting people up for trouble. It says absolutely nothing about lowering the nose. I personally say:"In the event of an engine failure after rotation with sufficient runway remaining, I will PITCH for the remaining runway, ensure 3 green, and use power and flaps as necessary." PITCHING for the runway in this scenario is LOWERING the nose. That kills 2 birds with one stone. You have effectively lowered your Vmc speed and reduced the possibility of stall considerably.
I think what all of this boils down to is that it is very important to know your airplane, its limitations and your own personal ability.


ERAUGrad04

 

[MauleSkinner]

In the before takeoff briefing, you should pick a reference point that bears weight in the Go/No Go decision. Pretty much, if the engine quits after this point, were going. But it is important to back up that GO decision with performance charts and your own personal experience in that airplane.

...and if you select gear up at your go/no-go point (assuming it's in the air, which is almost always is for me in a Part 23 twin), all you have to do to clean up the airplane is feather the appropriate prop.

Fly safe!

David