Engine out decision

Not directly RV related however I think important from a safety standpoint so I hope it can remain. Many of us have a lot financially invested in our aircraft and builders have their blood, sweat and tears in their RV?s. Sometimes that can drive bad choices. This video gives some perspective on rights and wrongs when the motor quits motoring!
G

https://youtu.be/jnODYKx5ics

Always have a ?Plan B?-

My good friend and long-time piloting mentor C.J. Stephens has a favorite saying: “Always have a “plan B”. “ This applies wether you are low and slow or cruising at 12,000’. It really means maintaining a clear, conscious assessment of your range of available options for dealing with the unexpected at all times.

Most importantly, be conscious of the trend when your options are diminishing in number, and take decisive action when that number drops to two or fewer. If the number is two, either find a way to add more(climb, change course, etc.) or execute on the best of the two. When you are down to one, focus your entire being upon its execution- never stop flying whatever is left of your airplane.

The guy in the video was seduced into gambling that an option that he really did not have would materialize, that the engine would come to life sufficiently to make a standard approach to the field. He may have traded a real option, heading straight to a downwind landing on an airfield, for that hope.- Otis

I tend to agree with Hartstoc on this. I've had 5 engine outs in my military and civilian flying years. Never once did what this guy did. Put every aircraft on a paved surface with zero damage, including a night time engine failure. I think he was way over his head in that aircraft. You must be able to make decisions fast and be disciplined in your actions and responses. Another beautiful warbird destroyed due to poor judgement and lake of discipline. Makes me sad.

This direct from CJ Stephens-

I shared this thread with CJ, who for many years has flown as safety observer during Reno air races, and described a similar situation during one race in his response:

?Hello Otis- I had seen this video before. First, he was right, the hardest engine out is when it is intermittent. Changing plans during this type usually leads to a poor results. I have chased P-51 through this exact type of approach with similar results. Take Miss America in about 2005+-. I was over head in Art's Mustang, Ms America was on the clock at about 450IAS on the course. I saw the smoke from the right bank so went mil pwr and pushed over as he started to climb and mentioned Mayday. I ended up rolling over him while he was turning 140 degree turn to final. First thing I saw his gear down and he was still way fast and climbing. Don't sacrifice the IAS with the drag. The way he was turning so slowly I figured he had good partial engine. He ran out of altitude, airspeed and good ideas all just short of the overrun. He headed off through the brush and scattered a very nice p-51 all over the desert. He had it made easily but gave up his energy and could not get it back.

In the case of the video. He should have climbed to engine out alt and headed straight to airport, throttled back to take the intermittent part out of the problem. Don't ask tower or wait for their instructions, just do it. Land in formation, or on the taxiway, if necessary in case the runway is busy. That sure would be easier than the rebuild of an airplane.

I get frustrated by so many real emergency situations and hear pilot "asking" the tower for permission to do something. If you need it, just do it and don't wait.

Thanks for the conversation

Have a great day.

Cheers,

Oh, I don't mind being quoted if you like.?

-CJ

wow...

"Another beautiful warbird destroyed due to poor judgement and lake of discipline. Makes me sad."

I will tell you what is sad. Comments like this. It is really easy to second guess the guy while watching the video, and yes there certainly could have been some different decisions made. Arrogant comments like this, however, do nothing to improve safety or decision making. I am certain he feels bad about it, HOWEVER, he is STILL ALIVE. The airplane can be fixed, loss of life cannot.

Reminds me of a movie quote:

"...You have it figured out yet?...Who the best pilot is..."

I posted the video because there were goods and others to learn from. In the end he made the right choice to put it into the field. Many would have been tempted to continue which would have been a disaster.
G

rocketman1988 said:

"Another beautiful warbird destroyed due to poor judgement and lake of discipline. Makes me sad."

I will tell you what is sad. Comments like this. It is really easy to second guess the guy while watching the video, and yes there certainly could have been some different decisions made. Arrogant comments like this, however, do nothing to improve safety or decision making. I am certain he feels bad about it, HOWEVER, he is STILL ALIVE. The airplane can be fixed, loss of life cannot.

Reminds me of a movie quote:

"...You have it figured out yet?...Who the best pilot is..."

Click to expand...

Bob- I appreciate your point completely, but I don’t think the gentleman’s comment was arrogant, just a bit overstated as the aircraft was probably not destroyed but badly damaged. Note that the pilot himself was very open about having made serious mistakes in response to his situation. I believe that this was in the interest of allowing as many pilots as possible benefit from those mistakes, and he deserves a lot of credit for that generosity. It should also be noted that he did a pretty good job of keeping his cool and never stopped flying the airplane, and as you say, walked away from the incident unharmed.

These forums likewise offer us all an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others, and willingly sharing those mistakes is a mark of a great pilot. As for stupid things I’ve done as a pilot?- don’t get me started!

I learned something unexpected from this that helps with a decision I’ve been wrestling with. I’m redoing my entire panel and will have a com2 for the first time. Should I add second antenna on the belly, use a diplexing switch to share the one antenna, or add a second antenna on top? The third option is the least appealing aesthetically, but seeing him squish his belly antenna made me realize that it is probably the best choice! Should also be more effective when calling for clearances while sitting on the ground at far flung airports. You never know where you will learn things!-- Otis

Yes

The video was good and it provides a tool to use in discussions.

Granted, there is no tone to the conversation but I found the quoted comment arrogant. The guy did what he thought he had to do at the time and the aircraft was damaged...so what...he is still alive. We have all had situations where, looking back on it, we wish we had made a different decision...that is how we learn. Unfortunately, those situations are now in the past and cannot be changed...

UH1CW2 said:

. . . I've had 5 engine outs in my military and civilian flying years. . . .

Click to expand...

Note to self: When given the choice to fly with Phil, or fly with any other pilot, take option B.

One engine failure under my belt, but had another with 16k lb of thrust available, pretty routine (now knocking on every piece of wood in sight).

I'll add some human factor thoughts I had watching the vid. I just got my EAA Flight Test Manual in the mail, so I have safety on the brain this morning as I saw this thread.

When flying gliders you routinely and practice and rehearse getting back to the runway in case of a rope break or tow plane has problems.

In a multi you brief every takeoff on what to do if there is a powerplant failure.

I would imagine flying a WWII fighter, in formation, at an airshow, has more going on in the pilot's mind. (note: I have no P-anything time just GA and turbine pax work stuff)

I know when we practice formation around 52F in our RVs, I have more mental stuff going on to make sure we have a good flight.

Pull an engine on me in a multi, or release the tow rope early, and I'll have no problem executing what was briefed. But put me in that 51 cockpit and I'm not sure how my performance would go.

Second issue was the power plants intermittent illness. As we talk about the MCAS on the 737, one of the issues was the trim running forward, stopping (with pilot trim), than working forward again. Intermittent mechanical inputs changes the way a pilot thinks about things. Vs a Whole engine failure / whole trim failure / rope break at 200 etc.

All in all, I thought the guy did a great job. Lots to be learned for us in our RVs.

I'll try to drive home the idea of getting to a safe landing area as soon as there is any kind of a problem in my flight reviews with customers.

Will someone educate me as why a partial/intermittent engine out is worse than complete engine out, this is providing the operator is treating as a complete engine out and seeking to execute emergency procedure?

The only thing that I can think of, in my RV with CS prop, is that if it is a complete engine out, I will pull the prop for a better glide. If it is partial/intermittent, I might not do that.

For me, I think an intermittent problem complicates my decision making process.

"oh an engine failure"

"oh wait...it better....nope still bad"

"hmmm break formation, declare and get on the ground is a good idea"

"wait...it's better now"

"I wonder if there is water in the gas, ignition, or..wait..its gone again"

"guess I'll put it in the field"

Verses..."there's a problem. I will turn to the runway immediately"

All that to be said, I know a guy flying an A-36 at night that had a failure, declared, turned toward a near by airport, and began his glide. It was then he noticed that he accidentally bumped the fuel selector out of position. After selecting a good tank, the engine regained power. Emergency averted

This is why, I'm unsure of how I might perform. I have never had an intermittent failure while in formation, in a warbird, at an airshow. It would be hard to overcome my psychology to troubleshoot while the runway is getting further away.

A non-intermittent problem simplifies the decision process tremendously.

Bavafa said:

Will someone educate me as why a partial/intermittent engine out is worse than complete engine out, this is providing the operator is treating as a complete engine out and seeking to execute emergency procedure?

The only thing that I can think of, in my RV with CS prop, is that if it is a complete engine out, I will pull the prop for a better glide. If it is partial/intermittent, I might not do that.

Click to expand...

Of course, an intermittent loss of power is better than a total failure, but it can really complicate the decision process for the pilot. It is a good example of the importance of thinking in terms of expanding options. As CJ suggested, it is mainly an exercise in energy management. Each burst of power can be used to climb, at least giving the pilot more time to prepare for the inevitable, more time to assess and communicate the problem, then more off-field landing choices, Then maybe an airport, now a better airport, etc. The danger is being seduced into relying on bursts of power to extend level flight over hostile territory. Most of the time, adding energy through altitude gain is the best choice.(but not always- Aye, there?s the rub!)

In 1983 I suffered a complete engine seizure at low altitude in my Monnett Moni. It had twice the glide performance of an RV, but the penetration of a bag of feathers compared with most gliders. Once I had a marginally acceptable field available, I tried the starter and it worked, so I climbed until I had several other available fields before departing the first, and the engine seized again. This happened a total of six times, during which I was able to safely cover 25 upwind miles and land at a full service airport, but never without at least one good off-field site available. It took discipline to resist the urge to depart each potential landing site in this mountainous landscape before the next was ?made?- Otis

Hartstoc said:

Of course, an intermittent loss of power is better than a total failure, but it can really complicate the decision process for the pilot. It is a good example of the importance of thinking in terms of expanding options. As CJ suggested, it is mainly an exercise in energy management. Each burst of power can be used to climb, at least giving the pilot more time to prepare for the inevitable, more time to assess and communicate the problem, then more off-field landing choices, Then maybe an airport, now a better airport, etc. The danger is being seduced into relying on bursts of power to extend level flight over hostile territory. Most of the time, adding energy through altitude gain is the best choice.(but not always- Aye, there?s the rub!)

In 1983 I suffered a complete engine seizure at low altitude in my Monnett Moni. It had twice the glide performance of an RV, but the penetration of a bag of feathers compared with most gliders. Once I had a marginally acceptable field available, I tried the starter and it worked, so I climbed until I had several other available fields before departing the first, and the engine seized again. This happened a total of six times, during which I was able to safely cover 25 upwind miles and land at a full service airport, but never without at least one good off-field site available. It took discipline to resist the urge to depart each potential landing site in this mountainous landscape before the next was ?made?- Otis

Click to expand...

Thank you Otis and Flyinhood,

Knowing myself, I won?t allow myself to get seduced unless the ground I am over, my option one, is absolutely nasty.
My plans/strategy on any engine hiccup would be to immediately try to use any additional power I can get to gain altitude while looking at my nearest landing spot. If I have a reasonable landing spot near but would result in damage to the plane, I would plan on climbing high and staying over that spot until I can determine if it was a hiccup or really an issue. If only a hiccup, climb as high as I can and head to the nearest safe landing spot so further investigation is done.

Good thoughts...

...but you know what they say about the best laid plans...

At low altitude, your options are limited. At 1000 ft. AGL in an RV, you'll be on the ground in about 60 seconds, at 500 ft, 30 seconds.

It's good to have a plan but that plan may go out the window under an actual engine out condition. Until you've actually experienced an engine out, probably best to reserve comment.

Everyone who has and survived, can probably point to something they'd do differently given a 2nd chance. If you can land with no damage, bonus but that's not always going to be the case.