Engine failure on takeoff from Pitt Meadows

[AirFrame]

I did a cursory search but couldn't find this being discussed yet...

Nice job of getting it back on the ground after an engine failure. Ed Bullion isn't on here, is he? I'd like to see the whole video, with engine noise if possible...

Stupidly long URL shortened to this text.

UK Daily Mail video, so turn down the volume as there's no engine noise... Just stupid dramatic music.

EDIT: Found a CADORS for it: 2014P1821. Red highlighting is mine.

Occurrence Summary
Date Entered:2014-10-29
Narrative:
A Golden Ears Flying Club Cessna 172E (C-FHTI) on a local flight from Pitt Meadows, BC (CYPK) experienced engine failure immediately after departing Runway 18. Aircraft turned around and landed on taxiway C, crossed Runway 26L, a skidded into the grass north of the runway.

Occurrence Summary
Date Entered:2014-11-03
Narrative:
UPDATE: TSB Report#A14P0178: The Golden Ears Flying Club Cessna C-172E (C-FHTI) departed runway 18 from Pitt Meadows (CYPK) when the engine (Continental GO-300E) sputtered and then quit. The aircraft was at 150 feet, turned 120 degrees right, landed on the grass beside taxiway Charlie (heading 300°), crossed runway 26L, and ended up on the grass on the north side of 26L. There were no injuries. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) did not activate. Carburettor ice was determined to be the cause of the engine failure.

[Pop n Fresh]

I agree with your dislike for the music, there should be a nice rag played on an upright piano. Terrifying clip my eye. I'm guessing he did not have the camera set for wind noise so he could pick his favorite tunes later.

Looked like a pretty well executed forced approach to me. I hope I do that well if I ever need to for real. My overshoot on the last practice one I did was the worst part of an otherwise excellent flight. My down hill landings were better but could use a little brush up too.

[CpnCrunch]

More info here:

http://edgarbullon.wordpress.com/category/flying-2/

Doesn't sound like the engine actually quit...more like it did exactly what you would expect it to do in the circumstances. Also I'm pretty sure it's an O-300 and not a GO-300.

I think the real problem is that most students learn to fly on Lycomings, so they're not taught to use carb heat immediately prior to takeoff, and to use it on the climbout if there's an RPM drop. The instructor trains them to only use carb heat at low power, so the student incorrectly believes that carb ice is impossible or highly unlikely at full throttle.

[B-rad]

which instructor are you talking about?

thats a pretty broad imaginative assumption.

[iflyforpie]

Every instructor I flew with. I had to teach myself the method CpnCrunch describes... this time of year with lake effect where I am.. even Lycs pick up ice between the run up and takeoff.

[GyvAir]

Also I'm pretty sure it's an O-300 and not a GO-300.

If the RAM 172 160HP sticker on the side is to be believed, that would suggest the engine is an 0-320 Lycoming, per RAM Aircraft's website.

[Rookie50]

More info here:

http://edgarbullon.wordpress.com/category/flying-2/

Doesn't sound like the engine actually quit...more like it did exactly what you would expect it to do in the circumstances. Also I'm pretty sure it's an O-300 and not a GO-300.

I think the real problem is that most students learn to fly on Lycomings, so they're not taught to use carb heat immediately prior to takeoff, and to use it on the climbout if there's an RPM drop. The instructor trains them to only use carb heat at low power, so the student incorrectly believes that carb ice is impossible or highly unlikely at full throttle.

Check out this guy's prior post, where he and his buddies decide to host brews before jumping back in the airplane....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Also I'm pretty sure it's an O-300 and not a GO-300.

If the RAM 172 160HP sticker on the side is to be believed, that would suggest the engine is an 0-320 Lycoming, per RAM Aircraft's website.

Yes this airplane has a Lycoming O 320. The Continental has 2 small exhaust stacks out of the bottom of the cowl on each side. The Lycoming has one big stack out the right bottom side of the cowl.

[GyvAir]

Check out this guy's prior post, where he and his buddies decide to host brews before jumping back in the airplane....

Sounds like the one beer was at lunch and the takeoff was at sunset, with quite a lot of exercise, sweat, food and hopefully lots of water in between. I think I'd have been more concerned about the cliff diving right after the beers, myself.

[Rookie50]

Check out this guy's prior post, where he and his buddies decide to host brews before jumping back in the airplane....

Sounds like the one beer was at lunch and the takeoff was at sunset, with quite a lot of exercise, sweat, food and hopefully lots of water in between. I think I'd have been more concerned about the cliff diving right after the beers, myself.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 02 cents

1) 80 % of engine failures are caused by the actions or in-actions of the pilot. The engine did not "fail" it was not effectively managed by the pilot which allowed sufficient carb ice to develop and thus lost power.

2) Any caburated engine can develop carb ice at any power setting. While Lycomings are, in general less prone to carb icing; they are not immune as some pilot seem to think

3) Pretty much every West Coast Late Fall/Winter/Early Spring day is going to have conditions that are going to sit in the "max probability of severe icing" part of the carb icing danger diagram, so pilots need to be particularly attentive to the possibility of carb ice when flying in this part of the country

4) The only way to know if the engine on a fixed pitch prop equiped aircraft. is making full power at the start of the takeoff run is to know what the expected static RPM is. For the 160 hp C 172 the minimum RPM at the start of the takeoff run is 2280. If the engine is not making static RPM when full throttle is applied the takeoff should be immediately aborted. An iced up engine will not make static RPM.......

5) The pilot stated, and the video showed, that the aircraft was flown level over the runway for a considerable distance before a climb was started in order to as the pilot said "build speed". I strongly believe that for single engine airplanes, altitude is life. Therefore I teach that immediately after lift off the aircraft pitch attitude is set to give the POH Vy speed and this is held until the airplane is up to at least 1000 ft AGL

6) While in general I am not a fan of the EFATO turnback, I think it is important to note that the pilot did turn back he did not attempt any heroic maneuvering to land on the runway. Instead he leveled the wings ,picked the flat surface in front of him to land on and let the aircraft roll out.

[Cat Driver]

4) The only way to know if the engine on a fixed pitch prop equiped aircraft. is making full power at the start of the takeoff run is to know what the expected static RPM is. For the 160 hp C 172 the minimum RPM at the start of the takeoff run is 2280. If the engine is not making static RPM when full throttle is applied the takeoff should be immediately aborted. An iced up engine will not make static RPM.......

That static RPM is not affected by wind during the test?

[Big Pistons Forever]

4) The only way to know if the engine on a fixed pitch prop equiped aircraft. is making full power at the start of the takeoff run is to know what the expected static RPM is. For the 160 hp C 172 the minimum RPM at the start of the takeoff run is 2280. If the engine is not making static RPM when full throttle is applied the takeoff should be immediately aborted. An iced up engine will not make static RPM.......

That static RPM is not affected by wind during the test?

I would suggest it is likely that an engine that loses all power right after takeoff is going to be so iced up at the start of the takeoff run that it is not going to make anywhere near full static RPM regardless of the wind, which BTW was light at the time of this accident.

However if you have any information to share as to how to calculate the effect of wind on static RPM, iIwould be interested to hear it.

Of course that would require you to contribute actual information, rather than ask yet another rhetorical question

[Cat Driver]

Of course that would require you to contribute actual information, rather than ask yet another rhetorical question

What is wrong with asking a question when your number was so precise, 2280 RPM could easily be mistaken as a fixed number by many pilots just learning.

Or is 2280 R.P.M. only accurate 80 percent of the time?

I don't teach on Cessna 172's therefore it stands to reason I would depend on your knowledge to clarify the subject.

[JigglyBus]

I'm not taking sides on this one Cat, but did you just reply to an accusation of asking rhetorical questions by asking a rhetorical question?

See what I did there?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Of course that would require you to contribute actual information, rather than ask yet another rhetorical question

What is wrong with asking a question when your number was so precise, 2280 RPM could easily be mistaken as a fixed number by many pilots just learning.

Or is 2280 R.P.M. only accurate 80 percent of the time?

You are correct the Ram 160 hp conversion uses the O 320 D2J engine. The C 172 TCDS for this engine quotes the following

Engine Lycoming O-320-D2J
*Fuel 100LL/100 minimum grade aviation gasoline
*Engine Limits For all operations, 2700 rpm (160 hp)
Propeller and 1. Propeller
Propeller Limits (a) McCauley 1C160/DTM 7557
Static rpm at maximum permissible throttle setting:
Not over 2420, not under 2300
No additional tolerance permitted

The 2280 RPM number is from my C 172 N POH which uses the 160 hp O 320 H2AD and has a slightly lower minimum static RPM. I would suggest that the difference in not material and that in this case as I have already said, it is highly probably that the iced up engine was not developing anywhere close to 2300.... or 2280.

I noticed that, what a surprise ! you response to my last post ends with a question mark

Still waiting for you to post how and to what extent winds effect static RPM. You know actual information that avcanada readers might actually use........

[B-rad]

My 02 cents

5) The pilot stated, and the video showed, that the aircraft was flown level over the runway for a considerable distance before a climb was started in order to as the pilot said "build speed". I strongly believe that for single engine airplanes, altitude is life. Therefore I teach that immediately after lift off the aircraft pitch attitude is set to give the POH Vy speed and this is held until the airplane is up to at least 1000 ft AGL

I agree altitude is life but I also consider airspeed to equal altitude thru energy management. I personally like the idea of building speed in ground effect with any available remaining runway (within reason) and then having ample speed to clear obstacles and climb out with. I've found it helpful for gusty conditions and improved control on hot days when the plane is sluggish to climb after take-off. It makes for a comfortable departure and I don't fault anyone for using that technique on a general basis. Again, while Vy is going to get you to a safer position sooner, I don't see this other technique being at fault or a wrong thing to do.

[AirFrame]

Check out this guy's prior post, where he and his buddies decide to host brews before jumping back in the airplane....

(unless he's edited it) it says "gave my buddies a beer each." Which implies he abstained.

Here's a copy of the video with commentary by the pilot. I think the music must have been his doing, not Daily Mail's.

[Pop n Fresh]

I'd like to set this post to this song but technology has not caught up yet.

I think one of those nasty FTU checklists might be in order here. Fool around, taxi over to the run up area. Putter through the list, find carb ice was developing, melt it off before departure...

Huh maybe there is purpose in those?

[cgzro]

The old museum biplanes that I fly must be carefully kept low and in ground effect unti sufficient speed is built up otherwise you wont be going anywhere ! Infact its a common problem with new pilots who fly off in the landing attitude and then mush into the air.

[GyvAir]

(unless he's edited it) it says "gave my buddies a beer each." Which implies he abstained.

The line was definitely edited this afternoon. AvCanada seems to have some influence online! Regardless, I don't think he would have broken any rules in flying a plane, half a day after enjoying one beer on a sunny day, would he?

[PositiveRate27]

Just did a scan through my log book and I've flown that plane, and I've met Mr. Bullon before as well. Can't comment on his experience or abilities. All I can say is that the conditions around YPK this time of year are ripe for carb icing and you can't be too careful. I had an engine quit at YPK due to carb icing as well. In my case maintenance (not the flying club) had done a poor job of reassembly after a repair which lead to a large amount of hot air not making the whole trip into the carburetor. Fortunately we were base to final so it was almost a none event. I always wondered if that turn could be made if the engine were to quit off rwy 18. Now I know!

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 02 cents

5) The pilot stated, and the video showed, that the aircraft was flown level over the runway for a considerable distance before a climb was started in order to as the pilot said "build speed". I strongly believe that for single engine airplanes, altitude is life. Therefore I teach that immediately after lift off the aircraft pitch attitude is set to give the POH Vy speed and this is held until the airplane is up to at least 1000 ft AGL

I agree altitude is life but I also consider airspeed to equal altitude thru energy management. I personally like the idea of building speed in ground effect with any available remaining runway (within reason) and then having ample speed to clear obstacles and climb out with. I've found it helpful for gusty conditions and improved control on hot days when the plane is sluggish to climb after take-off. It makes for a comfortable departure and I don't fault anyone for using that technique on a general basis. Again, while Vy is going to get you to a safer position sooner, I don't see this other technique being at fault or a wrong thing to do.

First off I wish to note the incident in question concerned a C 172 from a airport with a paved fairly long runway, so my comment was with respect to flying that aircraft, or similar light single engine piston airplanes from an airport with a typical runway. There are very few one size fits all procedures in flying and this is no exception. High performance aircraft, high drag bi planes, large flying boats designed in the 1930's or some of the weird and wonderful homebuilts etc etc, may require different procedures, but I are not talking about those I am talking about C 172's

Maximum rate of climb speed by definition means a speed that gives the most excess horse power and will occur at a speed very close to best L/D, or in other words where the airplane is most efficient. Since as I said earlier I think the most important factor in the EFATO scenario is altitude this will get you out of the low altitude danger zone the fastest. Holding the aircraft down will build speed but the altitude gained if you have to convert that speed into altitude will be less than if you climbed right away. If you don't believe me try it on a calm day. Fly both profiles to 500 feet and see where you end up.

A legitimate question is " why not climb at Vx, best angle of climb ? " . This would get you to a higher altitude while still in the airport environment and therefore may offer more options after an EFATO. While true I believe the disadvantages of the VX speed out weigh the advantages. Specifically the very low speed and concomitant very nose high attitude makes recovery from low altitude EFATO very problematical, over the nose visibility is compromised and engine cooling may be compromised.

Therefore I believe the best compromise for normal takeoffs is a Vy climb to 1000 feet AGL.

Again I am talking about normal length runways. Short fields will demand a Vx climb until all obstacles are cleared. In the case of short fields I believe holding the airplane down is even less of a good idea. Holding the airplane down means you have to judge in real time how much room you need to zoom climb up over the obstacles. I think it is better to get a steep climb gradient as soon as you can.

As always I represent one data point and this post is meant to give avcanada readers something to think about, not to assert that my way is the only way to fly and I welcome constructive criticism.

[B-rad]

I think that's very good advice. While your way might not be the only way, I think it is valuable information and should be at the top of the pile.

[iflyforpie]

Converting altitude into airspeed is always easier than converting airspeed into altitude.

To convert airspeed into altitude, you have to pull extra G, which causes extra drag. Might not be a problem when you are flying Precious Metal.. but in your typical light trainer you don't have that much kinetic energy. If you pull hard, you get a lot of drag... if you pull lightly, the drag is less but it takes more time to climb.

Conversely, with altitude you can unload the aircraft and get to a proper glide speed and attitude with minimal extra drag.

PilotDARs concerns about climbing at Vx vs best glide should be noted too... as you will have to sacrifice extra altitude to get back to best glide on most aircraft.