The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
daedaluscan
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by daedaluscan »

I watched that one also. I think he did a great job, I hope I would react as well. I assume the engine builder has some digging to do?
Charlie

1956 170B C-GDRG #27019
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by GAHorn »

He did great! He had speed and altitude sufficient…he recognized that…he put it back on a crossing runway. Nothing wrong in that!
Not to be critical…. don’t get me wrong….but I’m Glad he didn’t need the shoulder-harnesses he left dangling in the back seat area.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

In the video last linked, the pilot admits in the comments to his mistakes. One of them I think was his fear of glazing cylinders over insuring the engine will continue to run. I'd rather an engine break on the ground and risk glazed cylinders. This does not mean I would run the engine as if it was in a test cell but carefully with more shorter runs.

More on subject, as George noted, he did not do a 270° return back to the same runway. Besides his admitted mistakes, while actually flying, it is hard to critique his successful outcome.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by GAHorn »

Gary Van Dyke, noted author at Cessna Owner Org died in his Cessna 177RG when he attempted a return to the airport. The post-crash fire destroyed most of the aircraft, but NTSB found security-camera footage showing the final moments and engine disassembly indicated severe wear on valve lifters, cam, and damaged piston rings.

It appears to my cursory glance…that after takeoff on Rwy 14 he made a short right-then-left return toward the airport as many advocate.

From the overhead view of the surrounding terrain, a straight ahead might have had a better chance of success…or even a right-turn, away from hills and toward flat-terrain and a highway. The point I think important: Let the insurance company have their airplane-with-failed-engine… do not try to “save” the airplane…. use it for a survival tool, not attempt to preserve it.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/09/c ... fatal.html
click to ENLARGE Google Earth overhead view of airport
click to ENLARGE Google Earth overhead view of airport
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by GAHorn »

612BF828-1373-40FA-A13D-709601F83A06.png
2E1C9F2B-37E6-4F38-BC3F-9AA2D64646BF.png
BB9F1A05-5D34-4C09-9C28-6EECA4B4015F.png
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
pdb
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:39 am

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by pdb »

This is not exactly on topic but this week we had a DC3 (actually aN R4D-8) depart Anchorage International which lost the right engine on takeoff. While commencing an emergency left hand turn back to ANC, the pilot determined that he could not maintain altitude and elected to make a right turn to line up with runway 7 at Merrill and belly land it in. This was not easy and the pilot dragged the right wing tip just before touchdown. There was almost no damage to the plane or any injuries. More data is available for anyone interested.

https://youtu.be/FFFVelcuTQI
Pete Brown
Anchorage, Alaska
N4563C 1953 170B
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2366/2527 ... 4e43_b.jpg
User avatar
pdb
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:39 am

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by pdb »

George,

Your question is one that concerns investigators. It was making a cargo flight to Kodiak so it was likely light in fuel and heavy on payload. It’s not at all clear why they could not maintain altitude on one engine.

I have heard that the crew was having difficulty feathering the bad engine’s prop. It’s only 5 miles from the departure end of the runway at ANC to the runway on which they landed so they had little time to get things sorted out. What is clear is they had absolutely no margin for error.

Here is more detail: https://youtu.be/DNHGUyEy3dM

The amazing thing is that there was no loss of life nor significant damage to the airframe. If the engines don’t require a tear down, all it would need to fly gear down back to ANC would be new props and a roll of duct tape for the right aileron. They had the plane back on its gear in 45 minutes. I took some pictures but I can’t figure out how to resize them so they will fit here.
Pete Brown
Anchorage, Alaska
N4563C 1953 170B
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2366/2527 ... 4e43_b.jpg
User avatar
pdb
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:39 am

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by pdb »

This link should take you my pictures on iCloud that I took yesterday the DC3 after the belly landing.

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0IOLjsZ ... ld_Airport
Pete Brown
Anchorage, Alaska
N4563C 1953 170B
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2366/2527 ... 4e43_b.jpg
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by GAHorn »

For those wondering what “question” of mine Pete was answering… I had posted several questions including a question asking why the airplane couldn’t maintain altitude…Overload? (because the prop appeared feathered).

Subsequently, after viewing another video of the flight, my other questions were answered…but for some unknown reason I (I suspect newly-downloaded IOS 15.1)… my post was not capable of being edited. Not realizing Pete (or anyone for that matter) had already seen my posted questions (which was posted only for a minute)…. I thought better of asking such questions publicly and deleted the post. Obviously I didn’t get away with that. :?

Thanks for the comment, Pete…. yeah, I’m sure the FAA will be inquiring into it….that’s the real culprit in the back of pilots’ minds when dealing with problems…. No one wants unnecessary attention from people seeking fault…. So pilots’ in-flight decisions sometimes aren’t the best-ones simply because they are hoping to avoid attention…. i.e. “don’t declare” … or… “I must land at an airport or I’ll draw even more attention…” …. or…. “Don’t ask ATC for help and maybe no one will hear of this..”. All are poor reasons not to seek help or to drop an airplane someplace survivable instead of attempting the impossible “return-to-airport.”

Whoever the crew is on this Super DC-3…they demonstrated remarkable decision-making and flying skills…. and they deserve a raise! (but I’ll bet they’d prefer to be left alone for awhile.)

It’s a stark reminder that almost nothing we do these days is done off-camera and without an ADS-B record being made of it.

One of our presenters at the Wichita convention told of placing a spacer behind the Nav-Light switch as a convenient method of complying with the rule to keep the uAvionics SkyBeacon ADS-B operational …. a spacer behind the switch would comply by keeping the Nav-light switch “ON” at all times.
I don’t care for that for several reasons: 1- What if a fault in the circuit needed to be dis-abled to address an electrical short?, and 2-What if my SkyBeacon suffered a failure and needed to be switched off? Under the proper circumstances the airplane would still be legal to operate if the unit were placarded “inop”, and 3-Placing the spacer behind the switch does not follow the approved installation instructions (which are to simply placard the switch with the provided placard). Of course, if I “forget” to operate the Nav-Light switch on any particular flight I guess my ADS-B information would not be transmitted for the world to see. That’d be a pity….
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
voorheesh
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:22 am

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by voorheesh »

When accidents occur at busy airports, the FAA coordinates a rapid conference call with NTSB and local authorities to initiate an investigation. The airport is permitted to take any actions to protect life and property (or sometimes to reopen a runway) but the aircraft “wreckage” is immediately quarantined until NTSB releases it. It’s supposed to be treated as a crime scene. This allows investigation of aircraft systems and contents without interference.

DC3s have varying certification status and operate under varying performance regulations. An investigator would determine which was/is applicable and then evaluate if the accident aircraft was in compliance. It would not be uncommon to actually weigh contents and verify weight and balance. Reconstruct performance calculations versus reported weather conditions, etc. In any case there would be a careful review of whether or not the flight should have been possible following engine failure and if not, why not.

A short list of inquiries includes fuel quantity/grade/quality, engine/propeller condition, engine/flight control continuity, CVR/FDR if available, crew statements, ATC and witness statements, video, photo evidence if any. A cardinal rule of investigation is to avoid jumping to conclusions. It’s a careful and time consuming process of elimination. It’s not uncommon that precise probable cause is very hard to come by even with perfect video and photos.

The NTSB is in charge except in rare cases where they delegate to FAA. The FAA has statutory responsibility to examine 9 specific ares of responsibility to include prioritizing safety recommendations, if applicable. If the NTSB designates an FAA inspector as a “party”, any facts coming from the inquiry are excluded from future FAA enforcement actions. (Rarely, The FAA can open a separate investigation with different inspectors if necessary). The concept that any of the investigators are looking for fault or are intent on finding blame sounds good but, in my experience, is mostly myth. Pilots frequently handle problems without declaring emergency, usually attributed to workload. Declaring emergency will, of course result in an investigation, but that is an inevitable part of the business and we shouldn’t be intimidated.

There are avenues of investigation that involve second guessing and understandably make pilots and mechanics uncomfortable. These involve what ifs that are intended to eliminate possible causes. For example, what if Capt Sully had tried to return to LaGuardia. Unfortunate, but part of the process.

Aviation is wonderful. But it has its serious side which we should all keep in mind and pay due respect.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by GAHorn »

Harlow, I realize you have a unique view from your past endeavors…but I don’t see how this meets the definition of an “accident”. No one was killed. The aircraft did not suffer “significant damage or structural failure” and the airplane is not missing. Gear up landings are not normally reportable as accidents either. This event may be only an “incident” and should not involve NTSB at all should it?
Also, you wrote that “declaring an emergency will, of course result in an investigation…” …but that is not actually a “given” as many emergencies are declared which result in no further inquiry at all. Right?

By the way, as for the “Miracle on the Hudson”…. In the last few years of my career as a simulator I.P. and TCE I had the opportunity to “re-live” that scenario with at least dozen crews who specifically requested the scenario with time left-over from their trng-period… Not in an Airbus of course, but we copied the event in the Hawker 800XP/1000, the Citation-X, and the B-737-800 sims with clients that asked for it. The scenarios were re-played as Sully’s flight did…after the appropriate time of climb-out both engines were flamed out and the crew made attempts to: 1- return to LGA, 2- land at TEB, 3- ditch in the Hudson. In no case was a landing back at LGA successful. In one case a landing at TEB resulted in skid through housing and a slide onto the airport property… but none others could make it….., and all the attempts into the Hudson worked…if they were decisive in dealing with the bridge! :lol:
Anyway, the best attempted returns to LGA usually resulted in an arrival following an almost-aerobatic turn-around which arrived at the field too fast and an overrrun… but most simply could not reach the field if normal turns not exceeding 45-degrees were executed….and the probability of facing a departing aircraft would be very high at LGA by most accounts.
Capt. Sully and crew did the best thing possible it so happens. It’s difficult to critique success. (I also had a client who showed me a pic of himself and Sully standing together next to a Twin Otter when they worked at Grand Canyon Scenic Tours together…both wearing bell-bottoms and ‘fro hair. :lol:
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
voorheesh
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:22 am

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by voorheesh »

Hi George,
Technically, all these events start out as “occurrences” followed by investigations to determine if they are accidents, incidents, or other. This one was significant involving a large airplane and possibly an air carrier for whom there are higher standards. The NTSB is always involved at the outset in any event that reaches the FAA Operations Center thus triggering the conference call I mentioned. Sometimes, including possibly this case, it takes some digging to determine if it’s an accident or not depending on NTSB Part 802 definitions. Simple structural damage results in an accident call. Frequently, a gear up landing with no structural problems is an incident. An inspection of the airplane will determine that. It’s not uncommon to Jack an airplane up to get the gear down and clear a runway, but I can assure you that a careful inspection, supervised by some agency (FAA or NTSB) will occur before the owner operator gets it back. Sometimes there are differences of opinion among the investigators and a supervisor makes the call.

Air carriers get more scrutiny and the NTSB becomes involved in their incident investigations below the level of a technical accident. This is both to protect the public and allow inquiry into the FAA’s effectiveness in overseeing air carrier safety.

I am long past my job with the FAA and I have no knowledge of this incident/accident. I thought some insight regarding the process might be of interest to this forum. It’s never simple. I remember small talk and raised eyebrows among investigators, but finger pointing and blaming were never really appreciated by any who take this stuff seriously. All too often it’s a sad business.

Incidentally, there are several possible operating rules that apply to DC3s and I don’t remember specifics. However, I am pretty sure that each one provides for operations allowing for continued flight following one engine failure. I can almost assure you that will be looked into in this case.

Sure miss my 170 (glad I never had to turn back). Best regards to all!
Harlow
User avatar
eskflyer
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:48 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by eskflyer »

So this was a new engine on the right side #2. catastrophic failure on takeoff prop would NOT feather and could not maintain altitude. form the time he said he was going for Merrill to touchdown was only seconds. the pilot was the owner and did a exceptional job of maintaining flight in a bird going down. This could have been a huge loss of life if he had of lost it over thru any of the business houses in the area. He flew it to the scene of the parts that can be rebuilt.
AA16, SHORTWING and SPAMCAN FLYER, JP
User avatar
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by ghostflyer »

Turn backs to airports does raise a lot of questions and very little answers maybe due to myriad of scenarios . Unfortunately yesterday at our airport we had a Rockwell 114 crash on take off into the sea which is next to the runway . There was a loss of 4 lives . The aircraft just took off and it’s all alleged that it was engine failure . Yes I knew the pilot but will not comment on him. The aircraft hit the sea with its wheels down and then tipped over on its back . The water was about 2 feet deep . The doors were not opened at all. There is some damage to the nose of the aircraft . So the questions are, bird strike ?, fuel starvation?, engine mechanical failure, medical condition. We will not know until the ATSB report comes out. One thing we do know he didn’t attempt a turn back at all. The impact point was half way down the “down ward”leg. About 100yards to the right of the impact point there is mangroves growing . There is a lot of things the pilot could have done and or should have done but didn’t . So training to do a turn back ,will it help when the situation happens . We had a very experienced glider pilot training in a Cessna 172 to gain his private pilot license . The instructor pulled the power just after take off and instinctly the student [glider pilot] tried to do a turn back as if a broken tow rope manoeuvre and the 172 went into spiral dive and crashed . Student survived but instructor died .
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: The Turn Back to the Airport after engine Failure

Post by GAHorn »

Emergency landing….straight ahead..?? Turn back….?? On shore..?? ..or ditch in the water..?? There is no “standard answer”…

Each situation is different as can be seen. The “MyGoFlight” CEO died Friday in a Knoxville area accident. He and his passenger were in a Cirrus 22…doubtless felt a bit “safe” since they had, and deployed, the Ballistic Parachute. Unfortunately, after the touchdown a fire broke out and they both died shortly after at the hospital. (Personally, I’d rather that than linger for 6 mos in a burn center dying of infection.)

The plan to “ditch” …as opposed to crashing in a mangrove might have seemed to be the better choice… But if a plane lands in a mangrove it likely ends up similarly to one in a forest… 50/50 chance of survival…. so to improve odds a ditching where one can swim-out of an inverted airplane….. Except in shallow water the doors are jammed against the bottom/in the muck and one cannot get out at all!

Ditchings pose additional problems to a land-based crash: If the crash is survived, the immediate problem after the complicated exit….. is a second survival problem of avoiding drowning. That alone can subdue a healthy person, not to mention the challenge for an injured person.
Then there’s the problem of access for would-be rescuers. And fire is not restricted to land-baed crashes… a water-borne fire is a real possibility/complication also if fuel spreads upon the water.

I once considered adding CG-approved inflatable vests to my on-board equipt … but decided I’ll avoid the water at all-costs. Maybe carry a Type III throwable boat cushion or two for enroute pax comfort and hope I’ll never need them to stay afloat.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
Post Reply