Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Engine Out Survival Tactics

I watched the Webinar yesterday and I was still thinking about it today, so I bought the book. Your marketing worked… :)

I especially want to learn more about the sight picture. Right now it all sounds familiar to what I learned during my CPL training. We did lots of Steep Spirals and Power Off 180ies. Combined, these two exercises are somewhat similar to the SFO, I believe (haven’t actually read the book yet). While flying Steep Spirals I was always sure that I would make it to the field and it always worked – because the “sight picture” concept just works for me.

In Europe I had one instructor (for FAA to EASA conversion at 100h TT) who taught me a 1’500ft AGL downwind “key position”, followed by a pattern with 500ft steps. He focused heavily on the math: E.g. I had to know the ground level, add 1’500ft and then fly a proper downwind/base/final. For me this was already way too academic and never felt easy to do. The problem is that I fly often over the alps and there is no way I could easily figure out my height above a certain field.

Bottomline, in a real emergency I would do a Steep Spiral, because I trust my sight picture more than my math/chart reading skills in a distress situation.

Last Edited by ArcticChiller at 18 Nov 18:52

Just watched the video – http://eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=5187374867001

It is excellent.

Some interesting snippets:

  • Know your glide performance
  • Only 20-30% of engine failures are mechanical… The biggest cause is fuel related, so I guess this stat includes empty tanks
  • Vbg delta relates to square root of weight delta so (for small changes) e.g. 10% less weight drops Vbg by 5%
  • A neat trick is to work out how your wingtip indicates your glide range – typically 6 degrees / 1000fpm
  • Detonation is decreasing EGT and increasing CHT
  • Preignition causes CHT to rise about 1 degF per second and you have 1 minute to stop it
  • Multicylinder engine monitor essential (yeah)
  • Fatal accident rates 60% in IMC, 15% in VMC, 34% in night VMC, so flying in VMC reduces the risk profile
  • Practice glide approaches, say every 60 days
  • If unsure about the surface, land gear up (gear rarely breaks off to absorb energy and is likely to flip the aircraft over)
  • If fixed gear, got to be an extra good surface
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I thought the discussion on ceiling AGL for single engine was interesting, with the F-16 requiring the pilot to eject if there is a FO and the ceiling was below 2,000’ AGL. A light GA equivalent might be 500’ AGL. The 172M glides at around 8.5:1 at best glide of 70 knots/80 mph – this at max all up mass – so 30 seconds would be around 400’ AGL.

The PC12 with a 15:1 L/D and best glide at max mass of 119KIAS, seems to have quite a low 30 second breakout ceiling (400 feet agl) but with just the batteries you might struggle to deploy flaps in just 30 seconds, however as your ADAHRS/Displays may fail as you deploy other electrical services you might want to wait for VMC before re configuring.

The RAF method which is taught in a lot of UK outfits is the so called constant aspect forced landing technique. Presumably still taught in the Grob – a search brought up this link which describes it quite well. They also emphasise the sight line.

http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0035.htm

While I understand the point about increased deceleration forces in a fixed gear, or gear extended forced landing/ditching scenarios vs gear retracted – why then do the fixed gear aircraft equivalents seem to have a better survivability? Caution no robust statistics here, so may be a wrong perception.

Am thinking Archer/Warrior vs Arrow, 172/182/206 vs 210, Six vs Lance, etc

It could be mission bias, lack of currency in PFLs in the pilots operating retractables?

I like the idea of a monthly emergency procedures review, and no reason why a PFL can’t be practiced whenever the airport is not busy – however PFLs from the overhead don’t quite have the startle factor of practicing away from an airport with an instructor.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Buster what’s your opinion on returning to the runway after engine out after takeoff. Observing quite some discussion on this in another forum.

Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

Buster1 good piece of work.

While I tend to agree that higher altitude makes a better picture and lot of sense there is a problem with the manoeuvre itself: while pro pilots have the mental frame, the practice and the experience to handle such a manoeuvre during an emergency landing with not too much sweat, private pilots do need to simplify any emergency actions in order to have the mental spare capacity to not crash the plane before it actually…well…crash.

I have many clients that can show you the best drills during PPL training and then, after couple of hundreds hours flying with theirs shiny Aircrafts you pull the engine to them overhead a nice field and all come loose.

What I found out is that generally the mental capability of a normal human can handle max 3 things at the same time. Flying itself is already 2 out of 3 (later and vertical variations) that’s why I always insist on a oversimplified tactic:

Speed
Field
Mayday
-———
If above 1500ft AGL, trouble shoot.

Everything else, seems ornamental.

Of course pointing to the right direction is always good but, to be honest, sometimes I think that too many notions in emergencies are not necessarily helpful.

So, when it comes to memory actions I tend to KISS…

Take care

Ps: all of this off course is not a critic to the great work you did.

Last Edited by lowandslow at 20 Nov 14:20

No, good stuff. I can handle critique and I appreciate the thoughts and comments!

As far as the turn back, that is a huge (and different discussion). My book covers it some, but I am simply regurgitating what other experts and test pilots have found in that maneuver.

I think they determined that a 45 degree bank was fastest for turn with least altitude lost, but risky for a stall. 30 was far more successful and obviously safer. And the altitude lost wasn’t much worse.

I highly recommend you practice a few and set your own personal mins for this, based on your currency and capabilities and the airplane you fly and its ability. (AOA?) Great question and that is the short answer. Sorry.

In the book, I really focus on ways YOU can improve your odds but understanding procedures, critical procedures, glide sight pictures and of course lots of training options for practice…which is the bedrock for handling this serious emergency.

Thanks guys!!

Fighter Pilot Tactics for GA Engine L...
KVGT (Las Vegas, NV)

The question whether a turn back is even possible depends on climb angle, glide angle, and runway length and is complicated by wind.

There simply is no answer that fits all light aircraft, from the flying anvil to the motorglider, and from the overpowered to the anemic.

And that is before technique and ability come into the equation.

Biggin Hill

…worth remembering on the turn back debate (I KISS and prefer ideally to have a safety field identified on departure within 45 degrees either side), you may be meeting someone on the take off or climb out.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Hi guys,

A lot of you and the US/UK GA community have asked me for my best selling eBook in print. Due to the costs involved, I have been unable to do a print version.

Until now!

I’m happy to report that we are taking the book to print and it should be available globally in a few weeks. My publisher says it will be available in the Amazon Europe retailer as well as availability with Baker & Taylor (I think that’s what they told me).

Stay tuned here, or on my webpage, Facebook page, or Twitter feed for details and release info.

Thanks again you guys! I’ve seen a spike in European sales of the eBook as of late and I am grateful!

Nate

Fighter Pilot Tactics for GA Engine L...
KVGT (Las Vegas, NV)

Cool and congrats! Keep us posted once it’s actually out and available.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top