Pick a field

[Pace]

BPF

In my own situation with the Seneca minus three rocker shafts and the resultant mess in the engine the unit would have very soon have failed completely. At that point in level flight the Seneca is happy on one. It was then more important to feather the prop and shut the unit down.
Whether that classifies as a partial failure I am not sure!

You only have to look at the failure rates between pistons and turbines to realize that complete failure is not quite ZERO

What starts as a partial failure can quickly deteriorate to a full failure.
You make an excellent and valid point that the majority of failures are pilot induced either through fuel mismanagement or engine mismanagement.
I am still amazed how many students are told not to touch the little red lever and how little is taught about correct leaning etc.

With so many bits flying around in a piston engine I am not as confident they are as bullet proof as you are

Pace

[deltahotel]

Size, Shape, Surface, Surrounds, Slope.

The bigger the better, longest dimension into wind. Wide is good - bigger choice of final landing direction. Firm grass is best, not ploughed is good. No trees or cables on final approach is good. Slope - really hard to judge!

Night - best advice is stay above min abandon height and have a parachute. Failing that, turn into wind, get the flaps down and hope that when the landing surface finally becomes visible, it's not wall to wall barn!

[Fuji Abound]

Slope - really hard to judge!

No necessarily so, see my earlier comments.

Once you are happy landing on a slope you will be amazed how quickly you stop even if it is not into wind .

There are some good thoughts on this thread but quite a few seem to amount to trotting out the same old "stuff" taught at PPL - its OK as far as it goes, but I think as I said earlier there is a bit more too this, and with only a little effort we can all improve our chances of success greatly - then again it might never happen or you might have a handle to pull on.

[Pace]

Fuji

As for twins

With more options come more choices! With more choices the option to make the wrong choice

The chute like the other engine in a twin is another option. It is not the answer for all ills!
That saying should be stuck on every flying club wall

Pace

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by Pace

BPF

In my own situation with the Seneca minus three rocker shafts and the resultant mess in the engine the unit would have very soon have failed completely. At that point in level flight the Seneca is happy on one. It was then more important to feather the prop and shut the unit down.
Whether that classifies as a partial failure I am not sure!

You only have to look at the failure rates between pistons and turbines to realize that complete failure is not quite ZERO

What starts as a partial failure can quickly deteriorate to a full failure.
You make an excellent and valid point that the majority of failures are pilot induced either through fuel mismanagement or engine mismanagement.
I am still amazed how many students are told not to touch the little red lever and how little is taught about correct leaning etc.

With so many bits flying around in a piston engine I am not as confident they are as bullet proof as you are

Pace

Pace,

I have highlighted the relevant areas. I don't read BPF as saying they don't fail completely, I read him as saying they virtually never instananeously fully fail. In other words, as in your case, there is a warning prior to complete failure, which gives valuable time.

If you reconsider his posts with that in mind you may not view them differently. (Assuming I'm right, of course)

BB

[Pace]

BB

I respect and enjoy BPFs posts immensely as well as his depth of knowledge and fully understand where he is coming from regarding pilot induced failures.
Mechanically induced failures DO happen! Whether they are partial which give you time to get to an airport or at least reduce your descent rate in a forced landing it is again about choices.

Engine goes BANG you have no choices you are going down and will concentrate your full attention to the fact that you will arrive on terra firma in one fashion or another within a few minutes.

Your skills and an element of luck or lack of it will determine on how you arrive.

A partial failure? It could lead to a safe landing on an airport? It could actually put you in a worse situation than a full failure ie it could fully fail at a much lower altitude than you hoped for or in a worse place than you hoped for.

This thing about more options giving you more choices and more choices giving you the choice to choose the wrong option

[BabyBear]

Sorry Pace, I think you really are misunderstanding the point being made. I'll let BPF explain further, if he wishes.

Originally Posted by Pace

A partial failure? It could lead to a safe landing on an airport? It could actually put you in a worse situation than a full failure ie it could fully fail at a much lower altitude than you hoped for or in a worse place than you hoped for.

Pace, not sure what to say about that statement, to me totally illogical. In the scenario you describe it it is the 'lower altitude', or 'worse place' that puts you in the 'worse situation'.

BB

[taxistaxing]

I think the point Pace is making is that a partial failure can be worse, if you think the engine is recovering and take actions accordingly, only for it to then conk out completely.

A case in point was a bad crash at Biggin Hill back in '05 or '06 involving a Tomahawk, where the engine quit after takeoff on runway 21. 21 faces towards fields but the highly experienced instructor turned back towards the field and stalled/crashed with fatal consequences. From memory the accident report said witnesses had heard the engine note pick up, so perhaps a partial recovery of the engine lulled him into a false sense of security, and prompted him to try and get back to the field.

If it had just failed outright, he'd probably have committed to landing in the open fields ahead - and in all likelyhood would have made it. Obviously speculation but seems a likely scenario given the experience of the guy involved.

[Pace]

BB

What is illogical ? Pilot X is at 2000 feet over lush fields and flat land he has a full engine failure! He goes down into those fields!
Same situation but he has a partial failure he now has choices?
He can use that partial power to have a controller descent into lush fields or he heads 20 miles to an airports!
The track takes him across a line of hills and forest where the engine gives up for good !
As I said choices

Pace

[BabyBear]

I read the points made as being regarding whether engines suffer catastrophic SUDDEN mechanical failure without warning, or not. Pace suggesting they do, regularly, and BPF suggesting it almost never happens WITHOUT warning.

I accept you are speculating and agree the scenario dscribed may well have been the case. However, as I see it, Pace is getting confused and arguing an entirely different point than that being made. Indeed his confusion is apparent when BPF makes his statement re sudden and total failure for Pace to say he has had one only to go on and describe a partial. The pros and cons of each is an argument separate to the point being made.

As I see it BPF is not discussing the benefits of a partial failure versus a complete failure, or vis versa, he is in fact arguing that, since, in his opinion, engines do not suffer catastrophic mechanical failure then the training for such an event is somewhat redundant and the time would be better spent training on the numerous other pilot induced failures that do occur on a regular basis.

Indeed in the scenario you give whereby a partial failure is suffered then the cause of such failure could be pilot induced and therefore further training in this area may have prevented it.

BB

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by Pace

BB

What is illogical ? Pilot X is at 2000 feet over lush fields and flat land he has a full engine failure! He goes down into those fields!
Same situation but he has a partial failure he now has choices?
He can use that partial power to have a controller descent into lush fields or he heads 20 miles to an airports!
The track takes him across a line of hills and forest where the engine gives up for good !
As I said choices

Pace

Pace, I agree with the scenario you describe, however as I said in my previous post; that is not the point that was being made. It was not whether one was better than the other, it was about the probability of sudden total failure. In other words; if total failure seldom happens then by definition it will be partial and those choices are there regardless.

Now this actually supports BPF's argument that it would be better to reduce training for scenarios that seldom happen (total sudden failure) and concentrate on training for sceanrios that regularly happen.

BB

[Pace]

BB

I know with you if I say black you come in and say white ; )
But what the heck ; ) One last go!
Firstly I am not in the slightest bit confused!
Second I fully understand what BPF is stating and agree witha lot if what he is saying!
Where I differ is he states that full abrupt engine failures are Zero I cannot agree with that statement.
I have a habit of taking discussions off on tangents and while I do agree with him that a lot more needs to be taught to avoid pilot induced failures certainly not at the expense of practicing forced landings.
Yes a sick engine is more likely to complain rather than an instant bang but a complaining engine can quickly deteriorate to a Big Bang.
If BPF is arguing that all engine failures are pilot induced then sorry I disagree.
I myself took to a field 28 years back as a green PPL and I admit pilot induced !
Have I had mechanical failures in between YES!
Another for you was again in a Seneca Five, brand new with another owner. This one was a later model!
It had a habit of running rough then surging on one engine! It would then run as smooth as silk!
This got worse until climbing into cloud out of Weston it stopped on me altogether!
I got it restarted and as smooth as silk again!
The aircraft under warranty went to RGV at Gloucester and they could find nothing wrong on ground runs!
They then sent it up with their own pilot who scared himself silly!
Finally they approached piper and most of the fuel system had to be changed to sort it!
So my point is that all engine problems are NOT pilot induced while I appreciate many are!
Lastly I pointed out that a sudden failure or partial is a double edged sword as in some circumstances you would be better off with the sudden rather than a partial!
The Biggin crash mentioned above is one good example
At least a sudden failure in a single will concentrate the mind rather than confuse it ; )

Take care BB ; )

[mary meagher]

Having a check ride with the man I know is the very best and cleverest pilot/instructor/ATPL training captain in the UK, in my little piper cub, over Banbury, he pulls the throttle back to partial power at 5,000' and says "Now what are you going to do about it!"

Five thousand feet looks useful to me, even with a glide ratio of about 12 to one, or therebouts. So I headed back to the airfield - Sheningtin, aka Edgehill. which happened to be downwind from Banbury. So far so good. Decided that there wasn't enought height to do a circuit, so I landed downwind. It is not a bad idea at all if you have an airfield or nice big farmers field to land in and the wind is not too strong.

Surprised my instructor, who fully endorsed my decision as a good idea.

So being aware of your aircraft's glide ratio, don't entirely discount a downwind landing, it is much much better than trying to do a circuit and screwing up the turn. That's where people spin in.

[Fuji Abound]

Among my engine problems was one in a twin. The aircraft was all but brand new. Half a million pounds of aircraft. It transpired a bolt had come adrift (which wasn't required to be wired at that time), nine times out of ten it would have fallen harmlessly to ground (well at least harmlessly unless someones head or green house just happened to be in the way) but instead it was caught in the belt that drives the pump that cools the engine (diesel are water cooled). So the engine proceeded to cook itself. The trouble is when an engine cooks itself you are never quite certain that is precisely whats happening, nor are you certain of the extent of a risk of a fire.

So I well understand Pace's point. A brand new aircraft is no surety that there will not be a catastrophic failure, nor that the failure will not be complete in little more than a few minutes. Then the options present themselves. Do you carry the failed engine any distance not being quite sure of the extent of the risk of a fire?

These are the potential conundrums that can and do occur. It doesn't matter how new or old the aircraft. I could relate a similar experience in a single. Strangely there is less difference that one might imagine in some respects. On the one hand if the engine fails in a single at least you have no choices, but until and unless it does, its not always easy to access whether it will fail, any more than it is to assume that certain failures in a twin will not result in a catastrophic fire or other emergency which endangers the flight.

I understand the point I think Pace seeks to make.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Pace

Where I differ is he states that full abrupt engine failures are Zero I cannot agree with that statement.

If BPF is arguing that all engine failures are pilot induced then sorry I disagree.

Hi Pace:

I edited your previous posts down to the two sentences I want to comment on.

First while obviously the probability of sudden total engine failures with no warning is not zero, I stand by my statement that it happens so rarely IMO no special training or practice for this scenario is warranted, yet this extremely unlikely scenario remains the initiating event for virtually all of the forced approach exercises in training.

Your second statement is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. I said 80% of all engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The other 20% obviously represent engine problems caused by something going wrong with the engine or its accessories. But again almost none of these faults will result in the sudden total loss of power with no warning. Instead there will almost always be a period of abnormal engine gauge indications/engine roughness/partial loss of power/unusual odour/unusual noises etc etc. Recognizing this and doing something about about it will greatly increase the chance of a successful outcome over letting the engine fail and having to do a for real forced approach with no engine power.

So my point is that IMO flight training doesn't do a very good job on tailoring to training to fit what actually happens to real pilots in the real world. Instead it is all about flying the "perfect" forced approach. This ties back to the original question about field selection.

I thing the flight school obsession with field selection starts with a fundamentally flawed premise, that is choosing the "right" field is desirable because it will reduce the possibility of damage to the aircraft, something that is IMO utterly irrelevant. In fact I will go further and say that forced approach is the wrong word for the exercise, forced crash is a better descriptor. The goal of the exercise is to crash in a manner that will have the lowest potential for injuries to those on board. I tell my students to aim for the middle of the landing area and make the aircraft hit the ground at the selected point, preferably at a low but controllable airspeed. If they are too fast and the aircraft is going to fly past the touch down point then I tell them to smash the aircraft onto the ground with forward stick.

Finally as I discussed in a previous thread if the engine loses power or stops after the glide attitude is established the aircraft is trimmed and pointed at the nearest flatish area, I expect a complete "cause" check to be carried out in a flow style of check. During the PFL exercise I will terminate the exercise if that check is not properly carried out and restart the exercise. This is the last chance to fix the pilot induced failures and save yourself from having to risk your, and your passengers life flying a for real forced approach.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by mary meagher

Having a check ride with the man I know is the very best and cleverest pilot/instructor/ATPL training captain in the UK, in my little piper cub, over Banbury, he pulls the throttle back to partial power at 5,000' and says "Now what are you going to do about it!"

Five thousand feet looks useful to me, even with a glide ratio of about 12 to one, or therebouts. So I headed back to the airfield - Sheningtin, aka Edgehill. which happened to be downwind from Banbury. So far so good. Decided that there wasn't enought height to do a circuit, so I landed downwind. It is not a bad idea at all if you have an airfield or nice big farmers field to land in and the wind is not too strong.

Surprised my instructor, who fully endorsed my decision as a good idea.

So being aware of your aircraft's glide ratio, don't entirely discount a downwind landing, it is much much better than trying to do a circuit and screwing up the turn. That's where people spin in.

That is exactly the kind of a real world scenario that sharpen pilot decision making skills and makes it such a good exercise. There should be more of that IMO opinion.

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by Pace

I have a habit of taking discussions off on tangents

Never, really? I find that hard to believe.

In all seriousness, you do and you often do it so effectively that subsequent posts pick up your tangent and consequently argue your point as you have buried the original point.

Pace, I find it surprising that a man of your experience is disagreeing with the point made by BPF, so far your attempts to prove him wrong are actually supporting his argument.

Anyway to continue on your tangent, you do in fact raise an issue which, although aware of it, I have never actually given much proper consideration. So thanks for that. The fact is that a failed engine is a failed engine (assuming it cannot be restarted) irrespective of whether pilot induced, or otherwise and that fact alone would dictate the need for a certain amount of training to deal with it.

I do think you have a valid point in that a partial failure could cause a greater workload/more decision making/confusion than a complete failure and consequently result in a worse outcome than would have been the case with a complete failure. However I think it is very subjective and in the absence of stats it could equally be argued that that for every partial failure that has had an outcome worse than had the engine failed completely, there are 3 that the partial failure has given just enough to ensure the outcome was better than a complete failure.

A tangent worth going off on thanks, but I say again, it supports the argument that the current PFL training is somewhat lacking.

BB

[Pace]

Pace, I find it surprising that a man of your experience is disagreeing with the point made by BPF

BB

You are trying to put words into my mouth where have I said that I disagree with BPF on the fact that many engine problems are pilot induced and more needs to be done in training pilots to identify and rectify!
Where I have disagreed is on the split between genuine mechanical failure and pilot induced !
As I read it BPF considers the mechanical failure side of instant failure as almost zero.
I regard instant or partial failure as almost the same as a partial in certain circumstances can be worse than an instant failure!
Again this backs up what BPF is saying as its all about choices and pilots taking the wrong actions.
I sometimes wonder whether an emergency checklist in light singles may help?
As for thread divergence I see nothing wrong in that whatsoever!
Someone has to kickstart dying threads : )

Pace

[mikehallam]

Regardless of the statistics argument pro or contra, engine failure or poor management - raging in the above exchanges: most (all?) 'L'earners do wonder what to do if/when the fan stops.

To me it doesn't matter if who/what or even 'me' might have caused it to stop. It's a nice feeling when flying normally that you have received training on how to cope, thus one less 'what if' to worry about & concentrate on flying the thing !

[And yes, one real forced landing relatively recently when the ab initio training from way back worked a dream].

mike hallam

[Pace]

This is really quite important as its not the case of unlikely abrupt engine failure take to a field partial go for an airport!
Both are threatening situations.
The full!!! decision made your going down make the best of it !
Partial you are faced with choices!
Hopefully a happy return to an airfield and a self slap on the back!
The Biggin partial would have been better as a full with fields in front instead the pilot tried to go back, crashed and died!
As Fuji stated some partials where the pilot continues could result in an engine fire!
As i stated a partial could lead to a full! Trying to make a distant airport COULD lead to a worse location to have a full!
So really this is about pilots identifying the problem whether self induced or not and making the right choices in dealing with it!

Pace