Night Engine Failures

Tristar

Tristar

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,837
Location
Lincoln, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Tristar
This topic came up in one of my CFI lessons.

If you were to have an engine failure at night, the FAA says to fly towards and set up for an emergency landing in an unlit field. For anyone who has done this in practice understands how little the ground can be seen. It's literally a shot in the dark into terrain that more than likely will not be soft but this is what the FAA says.

I've also heard of many people saying, "I know what the FAA says but I'd still aim for a road/highway." Obviously the FAA doesn't recommend this due to the possibility of hitting a car, powerlines, etc. Although I know of people that have and both the airplane and pilot came out fine.

My instructor came up with another idea I hadn't thought of. He asked about landing on the edge of a lake. If you fly over a lake with at least some moonlight, you will notice the reflection thus creating an outline. This was a neat idea but I came up with two problems; one would be hypothermia from the water and two, most lakes are curved so you might hit a tree anyways. Although it could be a better option than hoping you don't hit anything in a dark field. Obviously, during an emergency, you don't have much time and will do whatever you believe is the best action.

Thoughts??
 
Personally, I'd stay away from water if at all possible. Planes sink fast and people don't last long, even in relatively warm water. I like the highway ideas as they are lit and usually unobstructed.
 
I'd go for the road too - as long as you have the right direction (and it's not rush hour) your chances seem better to me.
 
Interesting question, Tristan.

I'm assuming the FAA made their recommendation for an unlit field to minimize liability - i.e., if you crash and burn, then you're just going to take yourself and your passengers out as opposed to taking the family driving the minivan down the highway out with you. This happened in two accidents that my Aviation Safety class has studied recently - Delta 191 (L-1011 caught in downburst and crashed on road short of runway 17L at DFW) and Eastern 242 (DC-9 flying through severe thunderstorms and lost both engines, tried to put it down on the road and killed 11 people on the ground). Keep in mind that this reasoning is just my guess and my opinion alone, and does not necessarily reflect the reasoning or opinions of the various organizations I work with or represent.

Now, the edge of the lake is an interesting idea, though I would try to avoid actually ditching in the water. Instead, I might try to land on the beach, close to the water where the sand is more firm. What do others think of this approach?
 
Last edited:
t0r0nad0 said:
Now, the edge of the lake is an interesting idea, though I would try to avoid actually ditching in the water. Instead, I might try to land on the beach, close to the water where the sand is more firm. What do others think of this approach?
Click to expand...

My concern with landing on a lakeshore would be docks, marinas or other improvements. A fair number of boaters take themselves out every year at night by hitting docks...


Trapper John
 
t0r0nad0 said:
Now, the edge of the lake is an interesting idea, though I would try to avoid actually ditching in the water. Instead, I might try to land on the beach, close to the water where the sand is more firm. What do others think of this approach?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you distinguish a lake from a field in the dark unless there is enough moonlight, and in that case I think I would rather take my chances with the field. You never know what the shore of a lake is going to be like. Many are surrounded by trees, or are steep, or have dams.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not sure how you distinguish a lake from a field in the dark unless there is enough moonlight, and in that case I think I would rather take my chances with the field. You never know what the shore of a lake is going to be like. Many are surrounded by trees, or are steep, or have dams.
Click to expand...
Also how do you know the field is not just a clump of trees? In low light it all looks the same. Roads don't give you a good chance either as they usually have wires running over them. Face it, at night in a forced landing situation you is taking a lot of risk!
 
Trapper John said:
My concern with landing on a lakeshore would be docks, marinas or other improvements. A fair number of boaters take themselves out every year at night by hitting docks...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
I'm not sure how you distinguish a lake from a field in the dark unless there is enough moonlight, and in that case I think I would rather take my chances with the field. You never know what the shore of a lake is going to be like. Many are surrounded by trees, or are steep, or have dams.
Click to expand...

Very good points both. Hence why I put it out there. So it sounds like the chances are best on a road. How about an argument in favor of a field instead of a road?
 
Freeways have been shown to work as places to land - but of course, but in urban areas they are criss crossed with overpasses (easy to see) and power lines (impossible to see at night). Out in a rural area you might be OK. As you drive, make a point of looking up to see how often there is something running across overhead.

Two lane roads may look inviting, but when I helped move an airpane (Navion) a couple miles down a rural Michigan road, I was surprised at just how many obstructions there were along each side.

Of course, the dark field likely will contain trees. But, again, as you drive, compare what would be "dark areas" along side the road with the road itself and estimate the odds of success for each option.
 
I think this is another one of the reasons to become very familiar with your route.

Here in southern California the only dark areas are either too hilly to have houses built on them or gravel pits, neither of which are particularly inviting landing areas.

Pop over the mountains into the desert and there's a much better chance the dark areas are flat and hard packed sand with maybe some scrub.

Joe
 
Had a pair of CFI run a Bo out of gas a couple years ago. Decided on the freeway, biggest one around. They both died in the crash. No guarantee of anything no matter what you do. Its a crapshoot. Wanna play it safe, don't fly at night.
 
Water is hardly a death sentence. Assuming for a sec that it's not the frigid waters of the North Atlantic or that you're not doing aerials for Deadliest Catch, controlled ditching accidents have a successful egress rate roughly equal to landing in trees -- right up there over 90 percent.

The key to any successful forced landing is to maintain control and fly as far into the crash as you can. Most forced landings done under control have happy outcomes. Most forced landings that are not under control do not have happy outcomes. And that holds regardless of what kind of landing spot involved.

Personally, if the weather was acceptable I would ditch in the lake near the shoreline, particularly if I knew the surrounding area was wooded, hilly or residential -- and that describes most lakeshores I know of. Now, Lake Michigan in March would be another story...
 
I'm not too keen on using water up here, unless I'm wearing a poopy suit. Most of the water here is either melted snow or glacier runoff. A bit chilly. As far as where to land at night, I prefer an airport. Carry a bit more altitude if weather allows, and perhaps alter my route to pass over more suitable landing areas.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Water is hardly a death sentence. Assuming for a sec that it's not the frigid waters of the North Atlantic or that you're not doing aerials for Deadliest Catch, controlled ditching accidents have a successful egress rate roughly equal to landing in trees -- right up there over 90 percent.

The key to any successful forced landing is to maintain control and fly as far into the crash as you can. Most forced landings done under control have happy outcomes. Most forced landings that are not under control do not have happy outcomes. And that holds regardless of what kind of landing spot involved.

Personally, if the weather was acceptable I would ditch in the lake near the shoreline, particularly if I knew the surrounding area was wooded, hilly or residential -- and that describes most lakeshores I know of. Now, Lake Michigan in March would be another story...
Click to expand...

Dead people can't tell you whether they flew into the crash. Its a complete and utter crapshoot, the biggest roll of the dice you'll ever make. Some people die, some make it fine. Once the engine quits at night Murphy rules. Anything else is just plain delusional.
 
I rarely fly low when I'm going somewhere anyways. Altitude has its advantages in more ways than one.
 
t0r0nad0 said:
Very good points both. Hence why I put it out there. So it sounds like the chances are best on a road. How about an argument in favor of a field instead of a road?
Click to expand...

My argument is twofold:

First, as a matter of ethics - the folks in the airplane knowingly accepted the risks of flying in the airplane, including the risks of flying with just one engine, and then flying at night. The folks on the road did NOT sign up for the added risk of having someone try and land an airplane on the roadway. I don't believe that I have the right to put other folks lives at risk.

Second, as a practical matter - the roads have signage, wires, bridges, ditches, fences, and all sorts of nasty stuff on and around them. During the day you might be able to see and avoid them. At night, fat chance.
If I KNOW the area and KNOW the ROAD, then perhaps landing on the road might work. But that's not likely.

My strategy would be to land NEAR a road if at all possible, but not on it. I figure as long as I maintain aircraft control and keep my energy low that we'll be OK. I expect that landing in the tops of trees will actually help absorb a lot of energy, though there may be a problem with egress once we stop moving. Landing near a road can help as the cars should notice the event and alert the authorities.
 
This is a plane crash we (the fire company) was called to. This guy is lucky he didn't fall the 1000+ feet to the bottom into the water. The plane crashed onto the side of the quarry and as the NTSB reported, it was about 150 feet down. So when you land in dark fields are you sure it's a dark field? http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22231&key=1

Now the funny part of this call. The pilot walks up to one of the officers and asked "Are you looking for me? I am the pilot"

From this point on a VFR pilot can not rent a plane for a night flight at Brandywine.

I would go for the highway and take my chances with power lines and cars.


Bob
 
rmciottijr said:
This is a plane crash we (the fire company) was called to. This guy is lucky he didn't fall the 1000+ feet to the bottom into the water. The plane crashed onto the side of the quarry and as the NTSB reported, it was about 150 feet down. So when you land in dark fields are you sure it's a dark field? http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22231&key=1

Now the funny part of this call. The pilot walks up to one of the officers and asked "Are you looking for me? I am the pilot"

From this point on a VFR pilot can not rent a plane for a night flight at Brandywine.

I would go for the highway and take my chances with power lines and cars.


Bob
Click to expand...
It was not that a VFR pilot was flying at night that caused that accident. it was a stupid, ill prepared pilot that caused that accident. Just another nail in the coffin of evolution as a real thing. For if evolution was true that guy would have been taken out of the gene pool.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
It was not that a VFR pilot was flying at night that caused that accident. it was a stupid, ill prepared pilot that caused that accident. Just another nail in the coffin of evolution as a real thing. For if evolution was try that guy would have been taken out of the gene pool.
Click to expand...


I agree and I had a lot of chances to take a plane to job sites but I would not get to them in time if I had to wait for the sun so I just drove the 6-7 hr. drive. and not that I have my own plane I don't have the job anymore.
 
Tim, I think I have to disagree with you about avoiding the road. Granted, myself and whoever accepted the invitation to fly with me accepted the risk, but I feel that as PIC I owe it to myself and eveyone with me to make every attempt possible to make the crash survivable. As soon as the fan out front stops turning, I figure the airplane only has one landing left in it's life cycle. At that point I'm not overly concerned if the airplane can't be reused as long as I know I did my best to minimize damage to the occupants. As far as the commuters on the road, I just say sorry. Inherrant risk of driving. Same as trusting everyone else on the road will not drive their vehicle into yours.
 
AWACSEng said:
Tim, I think I have to disagree with you about avoiding the road. Granted, myself and whoever accepted the invitation to fly with me accepted the risk, but I feel that as PIC I owe it to myself and eveyone with me to make every attempt possible to make the crash survivable. As soon as the fan out front stops turning, I figure the airplane only has one landing left in it's life cycle. At that point I'm not overly concerned if the airplane can't be reused as long as I know I did my best to minimize damage to the occupants. As far as the commuters on the road, I just say sorry. Inherrant risk of driving. Same as trusting everyone else on the road will not drive their vehicle into yours.
Click to expand...


X2! Also, many times the plane lands unharmed and they put some gas in it and fly it off the road.
 
Baseball fields, golf courses, racing tracks, large commercial parking lots (kmart/wallmart/etc), roads and the beach are all on my list.... All I need is a couple of hundred feet to make the landing survivable for me....I don't care about the plane...YMMV
 
steingar said:
Had a pair of CFI run a Bo out of gas a couple years ago. Decided on the freeway, biggest one around. They both died in the crash. No guarantee of anything no matter what you do. Its a crapshoot. Wanna play it safe, don't fly at night.
Click to expand...

Better yet, don't try to make your airplane run on air. That is really poor planning to run your plane out of gas. I have flown at night even out here in the west where the terrain is very unhospitable. If the plane is maintained and the tanks have fuel in them and you plan your trip flying at night is alright. I don't do it as much as I used to. Bob
 
I didn't really enjoy the night portion of my PPL training. The unly way I can explain it is uncomfortable. Now, give me 3 more engines and cruise at FL350 and I prefer night to day, especially right at the sunset or sunrise transition.
 
In single engine airplane at night I would probably try to put it on a freeway. There are few electrical poles and less wires.
 
This problem highlights the risks of SE night flight. I have about as many night hours as actual hours, but I am much more comfortable IMC than VFR night -- moonlit or otherwise.

I saw this question on the Commercial written (I think it was that one) and I intentionally left it blank, because no where does the FAA support the "right answer."

Where to land all depends on the terrain you're flying over. When I fly (as rarely as possible) after dark over the nearby mountains, my engine out plan is "don't have an engine out" as the options there are extremely limited. Roads are the only known quantity -- though still unlit, they are lightly traveled.

West of the ridges the odds are good there is a field below you (perhaps overgrown and hilly, but not likely to contain a 500' rock outcrop, though very likely to contain a gas well, a moisture collection tank, or a heap of old rusting equipment). Closer to Pittsburgh, or east of the Alleghenies in the populous East, parking lots are about the only option.

Anyway, none of these are great and all imply significant risk. The only advice I've heard that made some sense about roads and parking lots at night is to dive to 25' AGL and dissipate airspeed there -- below the wires/posts/whatever.

I really don't ever want to test that theory.
 
dmccormack said:
Anyway, none of these are great and all imply significant risk. The only advice I've heard that made some sense about roads and parking lots at night is to dive to 25' AGL and dissipate airspeed there -- below the wires/posts/whatever.

I really don't ever want to test that theory.
Click to expand...

This idea really intrigues me. One, because if you've committed to the landing site, why not take the "helicopter" approach and prepare to land with as MUCH energy as possible. That energy, down low, is all the life insurance you have (since when you've committed, and low, you're generally slow with a short margin for error).

The flip-side of this is, though, is your tolerances are now that much tighter. A fist-full of yoke at 60 KIAS yields a far different reaction than the one at 105, 125, or 140 KIAS. You better have the best toes in the business to walk that high wire.

A past CFI thought that building a little speed above a highway (to 75-80 KIAS in a 152/172) was a good thing: lets you pace or pass cars below you as you come in to land and let them freak out a bit, and hopefully react to what you are doing. At the end of the day, landing anywhere at night is a crap shoot; without a motor or electrics you can only eliminate so much risk when it's time to put down. Like Joe and Ken said, we can prepare and learn as much as we can about our route of flight, but Lady Luck is along for the ride when you try and land in a black hole.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
rmciottijr said:
This is a plane crash we (the fire company) was called to. This guy is lucky he didn't fall the 1000+ feet to the bottom into the water. The plane crashed onto the side of the quarry and as the NTSB reported, it was about 150 feet down. ...

Now the funny part of this call. The pilot walks up to one of the officers and asked "Are you looking for me? I am the pilot"
Click to expand...

I just saw the U.K. air show MIG-29 mid air on "Destroyed in Seconds." They show the Russian pilots who ejected walking around minutes later, one casually pulling out and lighting a cigarette. :lol:
 
Last edited:
sdflyer said:
In single engine airplane at night I would probably try to put it on a freeway. There are few electrical poles and less wires.
Click to expand...

It's easy to find a freeway in SoCal. Not so easy in the other 98% of the country. :)
 
mikea said:
I just saw the U.K. air show MIG-29 mid air on "Destroyed in Seconds." They show the pilots who ejected walking around, one casually pulling out and lighting a cigarette. :lol:
Click to expand...

If a pilot flys enough hours their bound to lose a plane or two from time to time, that doesn't mean they shouldn't enjoy a cigarette...
 
Last edited:
t0r0nad0 said:
This happened in two accidents that my Aviation Safety class has studied recently - Delta 191 (L-1011 caught in downburst and crashed on road short of runway 17L at DFW) and Eastern 242 (DC-9 flying through severe thunderstorms and lost both engines, tried to put it down on the road and killed 11 people on the ground).
Click to expand...

No big deal but it was actually Southern Airways flt. 242 that crashed on the highway. My dad was friends with both the Captain and Co-pilot. This accident changed the way he flew his entire career. Anyhow, just thought I would mention it.
 
FlyNE said:
It's easy to find a freeway in SoCal. Not so easy in the other 98% of the country. :)
Click to expand...

But I wouldn't count on the freeways in SoCal. Unlike those rural states like Central Cal and others our freeways tend to have overhead signage spaning on side or blocking the airspace of the both #1 lanes about every 1/4 to 1 mile.

Plus traffic. Other then midnight it's either crawling or moving faster then glide speed. It's never empty.
 
My conclusion is that I'm not going to stop flying at night just because there are more risks. You take higher risks when you fly in mountains, over water, and even in some airspace. Whats the difference? Nothing, just the way that you understand the different risks and plan accordingly. Understandably everyone has a different view on what they'd do but as stated earlier, many of the outcomes are really a shot in the dark where luck honestly outweighs skill.

IMO, if a highway is available, I'm going to take the highway. Although, if there is room, I would try to land to the side possibly on the shoulder. I'm uncomfortable about the idea of landing in water although it could be a good idea to land on the shore. I would probably pick that if I was along a large body of water or a beach. I've heard many survivable stories of banner planes landing there.

The idea of landing in an unlit area is truly the FAA's way of covering liability but of course you don't want someone aiming for the middle of downtown Chicago. So it must be mentioned to students but when it comes down to an actual emergency, as in all emergencies, good judgement and luck will hopefully win your life in the end. Chose the safest option to save the most lives in your circomstance.
 
I've never had a problem flying at night. I do maintain higher altitude; at least 5,000 over the highest terrain en route (This works for most of the trips I've flown). I'll make use of flight following if I'm not already under IFR. If it gets too quiet with ATC, I'll call for a weather update just to break the silence.

As for landing locations, I'm always looking. Even when on a coupled GPS flight, I'll play with the VORs and look for airports. At times, I'll listen on Comm 2 to a local CTAF and maybe light up the runway lights. Always know what's near you. Know the terrain and your options. And, make dang sure you have something well beyond the VFR night fuel minimums. Forty-five minutes reserve only is a joke. Never stretch your legs that far, especially at night.
 
FlyNE said:
It's easy to find a freeway in SoCal. Not so easy in the other 98% of the country. :)
Click to expand...
It depend how you plane your route. Once I flew from SoCal to Texas all along the roads:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top