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