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

[Holding Short]

Could someone post a sample pre-takeoff brief exactly as they would do it for the same senario we're talking about?

2 CFI's in a light twin,who does what?

Thanks, HS

 

[MauleSkinner]

Could someone post a sample pre-takeoff brief exactly as they would do it for the same senario we're talking about?

"We're departing runway 12 at Podunk. It's day, VFR conditions, with flaps up. Prior to liftoff, we're going to abort for any malfunction. Between liftoff and moving the gear switch to the "up" position, we're going to abort only for engine failure, engine fire, or loss of directional control, continuing straight ahead with whatever runway is available, rolling out onto the nice grass off the end (although we will take out several approach lights). Once the gear switch is in the "up" position, we will treat malfunctions as airborne emergencies, and either return here to runway 12, or to Big City International Airport, where they have prettier fire trucks. Any questions or comments?"

Fly safe!

David

 

[MauleSkinner]

Another consideration I would make in whether to chop the power and drop from 75’ or go would be any systems lost off the failed engine.

Remember...this is probably the language used by the 2 CFI's who wrecked the airplane for training purposes.

David

 

[AC560]

Remember...this is probably the language used by the 2 CFI's who wrecked the airplane for training purposes.

David

I don't understand the point of your comment.

 

[AAflyer]

Excellent points on this thread, however the one item I think needs to be reviewed is the brief itself! We do them all the time in the airlines, infact It has become such a common place the brief itself has become nothing more than 3-4 canned sentences. (not good)

Especially with ME/MEI training a better understanding of the brief would be beneficial to all involved, however this once again is shelved due to the MINIMUM time (and MINIMUM MONEY) people like to put forth.

If you choose to close the throttles and land straight ahead, CAN YOU? Similar to what Jedi Nein said, if it is not available how in the heck can you brief it that way?

As another poster mentioned, is the commit point when you touch the gear handle, in transit, or retracted? A thorough brief on the ground with a REAL explanation in the event of "what if" is paramount! Go in depth to each area, so in the event a failure does occur there is NO question on what needs to be accomplished.

If you had two engine fires, and one engine still putting out thrust, you are now 1/2 mile before the runway would you shut both down and crash? Would you let that remaining power take you to the runway? If you have considerable runway remaining do you close both throttles near blue line and with any sloppy technique stall and crash on a perfectly good runway? How about using some common sense like Undaunted mentioned, use the remaining power to land safely! Common sense like UAL78 says is not so common anymore.

Lastly, was this a simulated engine failure, or a real engine failure? I for one
Leave 500 feet as my hard deck in certain aircraft before any simulated engine failures occur. Why?

I truly believe that it is very difficult for some, especially students to be on the EXACT same page as you the instructor, and in that case any "unexpected or non standard procedures create an unrealistic scenario, they increase the pilot workload dramatically, and can create potential hazards to you the aircraft and individuals near you".

Excellent thread, and many excellent responses.

cheers,
AAflyer

 

[Sig]

Wow. Two MEI's did WHAT in a WHAT?

The Seminole is the worst performing twin engine aircraft in production- period. You can NOT climb out dirty by accelerating to Vyse- these guys boxed themselves into a corner. You can brief all you want (and that's a good thing), but stupid trumps any procedure or contingency plan you come up with.

Gear down? Runway ahead? Don't TOUCH A THING, maintain directional conrol and land that pig (you have to point DOWN to accelerate to 88), close throttles in the flare (you lose so much lift *LIFT* that the plane needs when you reduce power on the operating engine). This is a Seminole, not a Baron- procedurally it's a suicide on the go if you munch a motor that soon.

Hit something soft and cheap. All of this gets really scary on a hot day. It descends nice and gently with one feathered, clean, and blueline at 2500' when it's above 92 degrees and humid. God, I don't miss instructing in Dallas in that machine.

*Just had a flashback that makes me wonder WTF? We used to brief where we'd hit the ground on a hot day following an engine failure [no runway remaining but critically low]... during a checkride. Unreal. You just can't bring it around- pitch to 82 to bump above trees or powerlines, and the resulting descent about a handful of seconds later will put you in the field. Un-freakin' real. Several hundred (almost a grand) hours in that dang thing- one engine failure, a gear failure, and an ALT idiot light were all I ever saw.

 

[AC560]

Another consideration I would make in whether to chop the power and drop from 75’ or go would be any systems lost off the failed engine. Many twins only have one hydraulic or vacuum pump. If it was IFR with no vacuum pump (assuming vacuum gyro’s which are still pretty common in most GA twins), I think I would prefer to take my chances dropping 75’ then trying to circle around to shoot a 1 engine partial panel approach (assuming the airport I was leaving had an approach) regardless of whether I could climb or not.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don't understand the point of your comment.

Another consideration I would make in whether to chop the power and drop from 75’ or go ....

If you tell somebody to "chop and drop", they're gonna "chop and drop", which is how you get enough impact in this situation to total an airplane. If you tell someone to "land straight ahead", they are more likely to land the airplane under control, with minimal damage.

Sure, a proficient pilot SHOULD understand what you're talking about, but literal interpretation of comments like this is what keeps lawyers in business.

Fly safe!

David

 

[AC560]

Sure, a proficient pilot SHOULD understand what you're talking about, but literal interpretation of comments like this is what keeps lawyers in business.

Sorry I didn't realize this was a court of law, I thought it was an Internet forum.

Legal Disclaimer - I am not a CFI (hell I may not even be a pilot or even a real person for that matter) anything I post on these forums does not constitute legal, marital, financial, flying, or masturbatory advice.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Gear down? Runway ahead? Don't TOUCH A THING, maintain directional conrol and land that pig (you have to point DOWN to accelerate to 88), close throttles in the flare (you lose so much lift *LIFT* that the plane needs when you reduce power on the operating engine). This is a Seminole, not a Baron- procedurally it's a suicide on the go if you munch a motor that soon.

Hit something soft and cheap. All of this gets really scary on a hot day. It descends nice and gently with one feathered, clean, and blueline at 2500' when it's above 92 degrees and humid. God, I don't miss instructing in Dallas in that machine.

*

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.

Personally, I have found the PA-44 (Seminole) to be a weak but a satisfactory performer when I have done the engine failure on takeoff simulation from a 3000 foot AGL simulated hard deck. In other words it will climb out at 200 fpm following an engine failure from the after takeoff scenario. One exception was a particular one where the owner had installed vortex generators (VG's) on the wings for short field purposes. That one was a "dog." Some are better than others but if you want to have the option of the "GO" with an engine failure just after takeoff, the 3000 foot AGL hard deck engine failure after takeoff simulation to an actual feather is a must to know your airplane. It’s your life. If the airplane it will make it at 3000 feet AGL it will make it from 75' AGL.

Another factor for consideration is 3-blade props. The drag from an engine failure with a 3-blade prop is much greater than with a 2-blade prop. So if your airplane has a 3-blade prop the pilot's action following an engine failure after takeoff must be prompt and decisive: Gear up, verify and feather while maintaining Vxse, or preferable Vyse if that airspeed has already been achieved. With a 2-blade your actions are the same but the 3-blade just makes hesitation and indecision a possibly fatal factor. With the 3-blade prop, if there is indecision present, some altitude will be lost.

 

[Sig]

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.

Personally, I have found the PA-44 (Seminole) to be a weak but a satisfactory performer when I have done the engine failure on takeoff simulation from a 3000 foot AGL simulated hard deck. In other words it will climb out at 200 fpm following an engine failure from the after takeoff scenario.

Seen it, done it, not much to hit when you're at 3000. Gear position absolutely makes a difference in that plane regarding a go/no go- Those seconds in transit while your attempting to acheive a climb speed equals a downward trend to that huge hard thing where the wreckage will be found. So you pull the gear up, no performance from the machine, and you're hurtling towards the buildings, trees, anything else that you now have to clear with a handicap and a slow climb. Blueline into the trees or gear stays down, point down and land immediately? On top of all of that, you bring it around (more obstacular interference)- plenty of opportunity to make a hash of it.

Indecision abounds when you're talking about a plane specifically built for training. You have more time over the outer marker than most have total, and someone like you wouldn't have much of a problem at all in it- because you're not just a professional pilot but a HECK of a HIGH TIME professional pilot. But slap a real failure on the shoulders of a guy with 0 time in twins, the instructor might be put in a place he can't get out of. Look at who we're talking about here- myself included- as far as the basic demographic that's flying these.

The cowl flap penalty alone in a Seminole is pretty sick. It's anemic on the best of days!

 

[MauleSkinner]

Seen it, done it, not much to hit when you're at 3000. Gear position absolutely makes a difference in that plane regarding a go/no go- Those seconds in transit while your attempting to acheive a climb speed equals a downward trend to that huge hard thing where the wreckage will be found. So you pull the gear up, no performance from the machine, and you're hurtling towards the buildings, trees, anything else that you now have to clear with a handicap and a slow climb. Blueline into the trees or gear stays down, point down and land immediately? On top of all of that, you bring it around (more obstacular interference)- plenty of opportunity to make a hash of it.

Indecision abounds when you're talking about a plane specifically built for training. You have more time over the outer marker than most have total, and someone like you wouldn't have much of a problem at all in it- because you're not just a professional pilot but a HECK of a HIGH TIME professional pilot. But slap a real failure on the shoulders of a guy with 0 time in twins, the instructor might be put in a place he can't get out of. Look at who we're talking about here- myself included- as far as the basic demographic that's flying these.

The cowl flap penalty alone in a Seminole is pretty sick. It's anemic on the best of days!

I agree...there's a BIG difference between a demonstration at 3000 feet and the real thing. That nice 200 fpm climb rate is what, an 800fpm sink rate with prop windmilling and gear down? Add another couple hundred fpm sink rate in an airplane like a Baron for the gear in transit (extra doors open)?

The last engine I had quit at takeoff--probably about 15 feet agl--started running again before I could close the throttles and land again (I think it swallowed a slug of water...we never did find anything definitive), but it was DEFINITELY headed for the ground, and would have touched down before I could have retracted the gear and feathered the prop.

Fly safe!

David

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Can you make a decision to "GO" with an engine failure at 75' with the gear still down and make it? Again, the answer is: I all depends. It depends on what kind of performance is available that day based on aircraft weight, density altitude and obstructions/terrain ahead. If the airplane is light and you have personally done the 3000 foot hard deck test in that airplane under similar or poorer conditions, and were satisfied with the performance result, it is a go if the runway is any less than about 6,000 to 7,000 feet which is an estimate of how much runway would be required to return to the takeoff runway. It may take more or less runway than the 6,000 to 7,000 feet but that all depends on pilot technique. If you choose to "GO," then take the gear up while applying directional control (rudder and aileron) and pitching to keep your airspeed. It is really not a very difficult maneuver in VFR conditions and can be practiced quite safely at 3000 AGL. When I test engine failure after takeoff on multiengine tests like this, even the newest of the new applicants have no problem; they just retract the gear and actually feather the engine (as I have briefed for them to do) while keeping the airplane climbing out. I have done this so many times I really can not tell you an accurate number but it’s in the many hundreds of times, maybe 1,000 times. Personally, I believe that the so call "chop and drop" maneuver is a more demanding maneuver and is the real subject of this thread. (You rembemer, the accident with 2-cfi’s at the controls.) Now that is a dangerous maneuver for someone that doesn't have much experience like those 2-CFI's.

It is interesting to note that the Beechcraft Duchess (BE-76) has an “accelerate-go” chart in its POH. This chart is used for determining runway distance required to lose an engine on the runway at 71K and continue the takeoff. The required distance is about 5,000 feet of runway. Remember that is in the POH for an engine failure on the runway and then continuing the takeoff, similar to a Part 25 certified airplane. I have no intentions of trying this out and I don't think anyone should either, but obviously if this little trainer with two 180HP engines (same as the Seminole) can make it from the ground, rotate, retract the gear and climb out; then from 75' that could only be much easier to perform successfully. Can anyone disagree with this?

A follow-up question for this thread is this: Why do we have so many engine-out upset (roll-over) types of crashes for twins after takeoff?

 

[MauleSkinner]

A follow-up question for this thread is this: Why do we have so many engine-out upset (roll-over) types of crashes for twins after takeoff?

In my personal experience, people tend to either:
1. try to counteract the failed engine with aileron, or
2. forget about flying the airplane in a flurry of trying to feather a prop (right one or wrong one, one of those darn things is gonna get feathered QUICK)
Basically, poor potty training. Hence my resistance to telling people to suck up the gear, feather the prop, and go flying from 75 feet.

This will also be my last post on the topic...it's sounding way too much like a discussion I had with the guy who flew this airplane...

Then, the airplane made a steep left bank, rolled inverted, and nose dived into the back porch of a home.

Fly safe!

David

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Deer in the Headlights Syndrome - That is the Problem

“Deer in the headlights” syndrome, (freezing-up) that’s the problem.

I see this many times when I am testing a multiengine applicant who is only prepared for what he or she thinks is the usual simulated engine failure after takeoff. What I mean is that some applicants are only prepared for the instructor/examiner to simulate an engine failure by bringing a throttle back at about 600 - 800 feet AGL after takeoff when the landing gear would already have been retracted and the power reduced to climb power. After the examiner brings back a throttle, the applicant mumbles a few things such as, “Mixture, props, throttles, gear-up, flaps-up, verify and feather.” Then the examiner moves the throttle and prop and announces that “zero thrust” is set. In my opinion this whole scenario has very little realism to an actual engine failure just after takeoff at 50, 75 or 100 feet with no runway ahead and no where to land.

Instead of testing with the above scenario I prefer a more realistic simulation of a real engine failure after takeoff. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I prefer to climb to 3000 feet AGL for the safety of a simulated hard-deck takeoff with the gear down, full power and airspeed between Vxse and Vyse or, Vsse if such as speed is published. With a mixture cut at 50 feet above the simulated hard deck, all that’s required is to apply rudder to maintain directional control, level the wings while simultaneously pitching forward to hold airspeed, then retracting the landing gear and feathering (for real) the propeller. This simulation is realistic. Every instructor that knows me and how I test this task prepares their students for this simulation. Almost all applicants pass this task by clearly knowing the correct action following an engine failure after takeoff. They have a clear plan of action for this emergency. And as for performance, all modern training twins such as the Seminole and the Duchess climb out with no difficulty.

On the other hand, if I happen to have an applicant for testing that is recommend by a CFI outside my area who might be unfamiliar with the 3000 foot AGL hard deck method, those applicants perform similar to a “Deer in the Headlights” following the engine failure after takeoff. They are startled and do nothing for a short while and then they start mumbling something about mixtures, props, throttles, checklists, carb heat, boost pumps, flaps and so on (even though all of these were set for takeoff and don’t need change). This brings an element of confusion and second guessing until so much time is lost along with airspeed. Of course, the next thing we know the airspeed has deteriorated to very near Vmc causing examiner intervention for safety of flight. That check ride is over.

So you see, what is necessary to prevent the “Deer in the Headlights” roll over accident is a clear plan of action for an engine failure right after takeoff. If the runway is less than about 5000 feet it would be very difficult to abort a takeoff once airborne and above 50 feet. But if you know the airplane is light enough and the performance will be satisfactory, then be prepared to do exactly what is necessary and don’t perform actions that are unnecessary for that takeoff that day. For example don’t talk about or try to retract the flaps when they aren’t being used for takeoff. Have a clear plan of action and review that plan in your mind before takeoff:

• Maintain directional control while pitching forward to maintain airspeed
• Retract landing gear
• Verify and feather prop
• Maintain at least Vxse, or Vyse if that speed has been obtained

Having a clear plan of action will prevent the “Deer in the Headlights” syndrome which is the cause of Vmc roll-over (upset) accidents.

Comments/questions?