Engine failure on takeoff--feared the most

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,275
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
To this day, i think my most feared thing is an engine failure on takeoff. I have had it drilled 30 deg right 30 deg left, below 1000 agl do not turn back.

As a senario runs through my head, say you take off, your approx. 500ft agl and the engine fails. You have a spot just off your left or right side to land in. You have a partial loss of power, would you reduce power to idle to get down or leave what power you still have in and just use flaps and slips to get down and reduce power as needed?

I know this question has probably been asked multiple times on this forum but what are the chances of engine failure on takeoff, compared to other phases of flight? Are there certain engines that are more prone to it or not?
 
Last edited:
I'd do whatever I'd need to do for landing. If I have an assured landing spot made, there's no reason to retain power and then drag my feat trying to slow down.
 
If you have an emergency landing made, never carry any more energy into than required. Use what you have as required to make your landing spot. A lot of emergency landings that go wrong go wrong on the long side, over shooting the touchdown point, as well as those that fall short.
 
I think you have to feel it out but don't break the rules (not rules rules but impossible turn type stuff)
 
Ryanb said:
what are the chances of engine failure on takeoff, compared to other phases of flight? Are there certain engines that are more prone to it or not?
Click to expand...

Also worth throwing this out:

Who here has had an engine failure on takeoff?
 
A partial loss of power might recover to a smoother running engine with sufficient power to make it back around when you start pulling throttle back.
Pulling throttle back when the engine loses partial power often will give some usable power.
If you have a good landing spot in front of you, it is a tough call whether to completely chop power to land.
I have practiced the infamous turn around with no power and with about half power to help me make this automatic knee-jerk response.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think you have to feel it out but don't break the rules (not rules rules but impossible turn type stuff)
Click to expand...

Totally, it all depends on the situation, just like to get some ideas of the best ways to do things. Thanks for your input!
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Also worth throwing this out:

Who here has had an engine failure on takeoff?
Click to expand...

One at V1 in a jet...took a bird.

Otherwise, the closest was an engine failure on a go-around at about 50 feet and Vx.

The other five failure/shutdowns were pretty innocuous for the most part. And 7 is supposed to be a lucky number, so my goal is to stop there.:yes:
 
I have put some thought into this after that kingair accident and a recent accident involving a CFI and student about 2 hours away from me. Lost power after takeoff about 400ft or so and turned back, clipped a power line and the student died and the cfi died last night. If you want to look at the report.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20141016X33358&key=1
 
flyingron said:
I'd do whatever I'd need to do for landing. If I have an assured landing spot made, there's no reason to retain power and then drag my feat trying to slow down.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
If you have an emergency landing made, never carry any more energy into than required. Use what you have as required to make your landing spot. A lot of emergency landings that go wrong go wrong on the long side, over shooting the touchdown point, as well as those that fall short.
Click to expand...

+1 :yes:
 
MauleSkinner said:
One at V1 in a jet...took a bird.

Otherwise, the closest was an engine failure on a go-around at about 50 feet and Vx.

The other five failure/shutdowns were pretty innocuous for the most part. And 7 is supposed to be a lucky number, so my goal is to stop there.:yes:
Click to expand...

Ever find out the causes?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Also worth throwing this out:

Who here has had an engine failure on takeoff?
Click to expand...

2 Stroke Rotax 30-50' above ground, engine seized. I froze for a 1/4 of a second, then pulled the stick up slightly ( I was in denial, never do this :no: , ever!) before putting the nose down. Pulled the stick back (flair) right before impact and was able to save myself, but not the plane. :rolleyes2: Tore it up pretty good, but walked away. Sold it wrecked and bought a 4 stroke Rotax and the flying angels has been kind to me ever since. :D

You have to be prepared to put the nose down instantly when you lose power on take off.
You have to be prepared to put the nose down instantly when you lose power on take off.
You have to be prepared to put the nose down instantly when you lose power on take off.

I am anti "Impossible Turn" below pattern altitude. Been there, done that. Land straight ahead or slightly left or right to avoid obstacles, but use the energy you have for the flair....or die. Pretty simple really, the choice is yours.
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
Also worth throwing this out:

Who here has had an engine failure on takeoff?
Click to expand...

I've mentioned this before but I have. A mooney 201, low time aircraft at teterboro n.j.1985. Had I taken an intersection takeoff I would be dead. Gear retracted, 300 feet when it quit. Gear down , three green just as it touched. Used the entire runway. It was due to lousy annual by lousy mechanic. Water in final fuel filter. I also had to land my Stearman due to faulty valve adjustment by mechanic. Lucky to be over farm fields at 1200 feet. Lots of luck in both instances.
 
Ryanb said:
Ever find out the causes?
Click to expand...

Thrown turbine blade, blocked fuel tank vent, internal pieces broke, and 3x loss of oil pressure (one made enough metal to have an oil blockage, and two others were blown seals). Most we're in twin engine airplanes, so I had one left to land with. Only the go-around and one other were dead-sticks.
 
Engine failed a few times today, a couple times on takeoff and also during a missed approach...
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I've mentioned this before but I have. A mooney 201, low time aircraft at teterboro n.j.1985. Had I taken an intersection takeoff I would be dead. Gear retracted, 300 feet when it quit. Gear down , three green just as it touched. Used the entire runway. It was due to lousy annual by lousy mechanic. Water in final fuel filter. I also had to land my Stearman due to faulty valve adjustment by mechanic. Lucky to be over farm fields at 1200 feet. Lots of luck in both instances.
Click to expand...

One lesson to be learned is never take an intersection departure. Glad all ended well!
 
Everskyward said:
New Jersey. We changed providers. It would have been spooky to go to Wichita, next door to the destroyed building.
Click to expand...

Bring back some lobster or something...oh, I guess that's a ways north of you, nevermind...:D:goofy:
 
Ryanb said:
I know this question has probably been asked multiple times on this forum but what are the chances of engine failure on takeoff, compared to other phases of flight? Are there certain engines that are more prone to it or not?
Click to expand...

The chances are as good as anything happening in any phase of flight.
 
During every takeoff the engine is operating at its max. Cars usually do not operate at max. The aircraft engine's parts like say the crank, could be 40- 50 or more years old. Who has worked on it? How was it flown? did it have an unreported prop strike? Lots of unknowns. Lots of corners cut over the years. Log books in many cases should be not taken too seriously. I would offer that takeoff is very serious business compared to straight and level. As big a threat as blundering into bad weather with improper training.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
During every takeoff the engine is operating at its max. Cars usually do not operate at max. The aircraft engine's parts like say the crank, could be 40- 50 or more years old. Who has worked on it? How was it flown? did it have an unreported prop strike? Lots of unknowns. Lots of corners cut over the years. Log books in many cases should be not taken too seriously. I would offer that takeoff is very serious business compared to straight and level. As big a threat as blundering into bad weather with improper training.
Click to expand...

Thats very true, a/c engines are designed to be ran at max power rather than car engines aren't they?
 
No. No engine is designed to run at max power all the time. Aircraft engines do this much more often than autos putting a lot more strain on them. This is especially true if the pilot does not warm them up properly, overheats them, etc. a rental aircraft is open to much more abuse than one privately owned as is a rental car. Cars usually are not used when they are 40-50 years old except maybe in Cuba.
 
Everskyward said:
Pizza would be more like it...
Click to expand...

We have plenty of greasy, flat pizza 'round here already, domino's fills that position nicely...

I think I may go on a seafood and bbq mission in the near future...
 
Ryanb said:
One lesson to be learned is never take an intersection departure. Glad all ended well!
Click to expand...

It depends on the airport and what is around it, and the time of year. Crops are out of the fields now. Lots of places to land. ;)
 
Jimmy cooper said:
No. No engine is designed to run at max power all the time. Aircraft engines do this much more often than autos putting a lot more strain on them. This is especially true if the pilot does not warm them up properly, overheats them, etc. a rental aircraft is open to much more abuse than one privately owned as is a rental car. Cars usually are not used when they are 40-50 years old except maybe in Cuba.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true for aircraft engines. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
It depends on the airport and what is around it, and the time of year. Crops are out of the fields now. Lots of places to land. ;)
Click to expand...

Crops out of the fields at teterboro is a mute point. Apartment buildings are not harvested. Lots of trees and or homes at the ends of many runways. An example would be the recent King air accident. As I remember there's lots of fields where he elected to try a 180, but this may have changed since I was there.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Crops out of the fields at teterboro is a mute point. Apartment buildings are not harvested. Lots of trees and or homes at the ends of many runways. An example would be the recent King air accident. As I remember there's lots of fields where he elected to try a 180, but this may have changed since I was there.
Click to expand...

Well then, just keep working the pattern at Terterboro. :rolleyes:

When you go cross country for 10 years, and fly all 50 states get back to me. ;)
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Also worth throwing this out:

Who here has had an engine failure on takeoff?
Click to expand...


I had a partial engine failure at 100 ft agl on the first flight after annual. I checked mixture and carb heat for a couple seconds and it didn't help. I was making about 1500-1700 rpms which isn't enough to climb or even hold altitude. Pulled power to idle, full flaps, slipped it in and stopped/skidded with about 20 ft of runway left.

After that incident I treat every takeoff like the engine is going to quit and use every inch of runway. I've turned down a couple intersection departures since then too.

I also practiced engine out at an abandoned airport at altitude once the plane was back in service. Good way to learn what altitude you can turn back at.
 
Geico266 said:
2 Stroke Rotax 30-50' above ground, engine seized. I froze for a 1/4 of a second, then pulled the stick up slightly ( I was in denial, never do this :no: , ever!) before putting the nose down. Pulled the stick back (flair) right before impact and was able to save myself, but not the plane. :rolleyes2: Tore it up pretty good, but walked away. Sold it wrecked and bought a 4 stroke Rotax and the flying angels has been kind to me ever since. :D

You have to be prepared to put the nose down instantly when you lose power on take off.
You have to be prepared to put the nose down instantly when you lose power on take off.
You have to be prepared to put the nose down instantly when you lose power on take off.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was because it wasn't certified to Part 23, but for Part 23 airplanes the plane should continue to fly at the trimmed speed even when the engine loses power:

§ 23.173 Static longitudinal stability.
Under the conditions specified in § 23.175 and with the airplane trimmed as indicated, the characteristics of the elevator control forces and the friction within the control system must be as follows:

(a) A pull must be required to obtain and maintain speeds below the specified trim speed and a push required to obtain and maintain speeds above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that can be obtained, except that speeds requiring a control force in excess of 40 pounds or speeds above the maximum allowable speed or below the minimum speed for steady unstalled flight, need not be considered.

(b) The airspeed must return to within the tolerances specified for applicable categories of airplanes when the control force is slowly released at any speed within the speed range specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The applicable tolerances are—
(1) The airspeed must return to within plus or minus 10 percent of the original trim airspeed; and
(2) For commuter category airplanes, the airspeed must return to within plus or minus 7.5 percent of the original trim airspeed for the cruising condition specified in § 23.175(b).

(c) The stick force must vary with speed so that any substantial speed change results in a stick force clearly perceptible to the pilot.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Maybe it was because it wasn't certified to Part 23, but for Part 23 airplanes the plane should continue to fly at the trimmed speed even when the engine loses power:

§ 23.173 Static longitudinal stability.
Under the conditions specified in § 23.175 and with the airplane trimmed as indicated, the characteristics of the elevator control forces and the friction within the control system must be as follows:

(a) A pull must be required to obtain and maintain speeds below the specified trim speed and a push required to obtain and maintain speeds above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that can be obtained, except that speeds requiring a control force in excess of 40 pounds or speeds above the maximum allowable speed or below the minimum speed for steady unstalled flight, need not be considered.

(b) The airspeed must return to within the tolerances specified for applicable categories of airplanes when the control force is slowly released at any speed within the speed range specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The applicable tolerances are—
(1) The airspeed must return to within plus or minus 10 percent of the original trim airspeed; and
(2) For commuter category airplanes, the airspeed must return to within plus or minus 7.5 percent of the original trim airspeed for the cruising condition specified in § 23.175(b).

(c) The stick force must vary with speed so that any substantial speed change results in a stick force clearly perceptible to the pilot.
Click to expand...
Key wor here...the airplane must RETURN to within the appropriate tolerances of the original airspeed. Going from full power to no power will result in the airplane slowing down, and assuming it's got enough altitude and time, it will work its way back to the original speed. There will, however, be large changes in airspeed before it gets there.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Key wor here...the airplane must RETURN to within the appropriate tolerances of the original airspeed. Going from full power to no power will result in the airplane slowing down, and assuming it's got enough altitude and time, it will work its way back to the original speed. There will, however, be large changes in airspeed before it gets there.
Click to expand...

Power is reduced or cut on every landing. Do you recall ever experiencing dramatic slow downs requiring you to push the nose down? Don't you actually find you have to pull back to slow up because the plane continues to fly at the trimmed speed of its own accord? I should have also quoted the Part 23 requirements for dynamic stability (below) in addition to the static stability requirements. You'll note that it requires heavy damping of phugoids with controls free to move or fixed in place.

Different planes will react differently so of course it is worthwhile to experiment at altitude: apply takeoff power, trim to Vx or Vy climb speed as one would on tskeoff, then cut the throttle and don't touch the elevator. I believe most pilots will observe the nose of their airplanes to simply drop on its own and the speed oscillations to be modest and short lived.

----
§ 23.181 Dynamic stability.
(a) Any short period oscillation not including combined lateral-directional oscillations occurring between the stalling speed and the maximum allowable speed appropriate to the configuration of the airplane must be heavily damped with the primary controls—
(1) Free; and
(2) In a fixed position.
(b) Any combined lateral-directional oscillations (Dutch roll) occurring between the stalling speed and the maximum allowable speed (VFE, VLE, VN0, VFC/MFC) appropriate to the configuration of the airplane with the primary controls in both free and fixed position, must be damped to 1/10 amplitude in:
(1) Seven (7) cycles below 18,000 feet and
(2) Thirteen (13) cycles from 18,000 feet to the certified maximum altitude.
(c) If it is determined that the function of a stability augmentation system, reference § 23.672, is needed to meet the flight characteristic requirements of this part, the primary control requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section are not applicable to the tests needed to verify the acceptability of that system.
(d) During the conditions as specified in § 23.175, when the longitudinal control force required to maintain speeds differing from the trim speed by at least plus and minus 15 percent is suddenly released, the response of the airplane must not exhibit any dangerous characteristics nor be excessive in relation to the magnitude of the control force released. Any long-period oscillation of flight path, phugoid oscillation, that results must not be so unstable as to increase the pilot's workload or otherwise endanger the airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top