Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft!

[farri]

So back to the question – “Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft” Frank has cheekily posted. Frank the answer is Of course an engine failure wont kill you – you are my proof - (how many have you had?????. However - You must have to have the right training – self-taught correct? and survived, but always have a plan to put it down without power!

You got the "cheekily posted" bit wrong! I was completely serious!

 

For those who don`t know.

 

Self-taught? Absolutely correct! When I started flying, twin seat Ultralights were illegal, so no legal dual flight training in any Ultralight; if you could find someone somewhere in the country who would instruct it was probably someone who had never flown an Ultralight and simply been given the authority to instruct and I didn`t see the intelligence of learning to fly in some Cessna, then go and fly the Ultralight I`d built.

 

Engine failures? Well! I had more than some but many less than others! I have one of Austflight`s original twin seat, certified WB Drifters` approved to start dual flight training, through the Australian Ultralight Federation and that`s the AC I started flight training with; it came with a Rotax 503 single carb, single ignition engine with a Rotax B type reduction gearbox, turning a 2 blade wooden propeller; that engine did a couple of hundred hours then destroyed itself.

 

Next was a Rotax grey head 582, it did over 600 hrs then destroyed itself, then so did the next one! These Rotax engines had been made for snowmobiles and other things, not aircraft; there was next to no information on how to maintain them and it was us guys in the early days who put our life on the line using these engines to get to the Rotax engines available today.

 

Yes! I survived and without so much as a scratch; it`s now over 10 years since I installed my current Rotax 503 DCDI with the Rotax E type box driving a 60 inch 3 blade ground adjustable Ivo prop, it`s done many hours and has never so much as missed a single beat! Do I trust it? Never! but I`m more than happy to fly with it.

 

Frank.

 

 

[jangiolini]

I have to agree that an engine out is not fatal its the way you deal with it determines to a great extent the outcome.. I learned my flying skills in a glider and there for had no engine worries. I have had engine outs in three different aircraft a Cessna 150 a Luton Minor (massively draggy) and an Avid Speed wing, survived all and no damage to the aircraft! I have looked at the AAIB reports of many fatal crashes and one thing stands out in most and that is the mode of arrival on the ground which had all the characteristics of a stall spin scenario! I accept that the terrain below you has a huge effect on the outcome but as with any fall from height the slower you impact the greater the chance of survival. This is also true of an aircraft impact. There is a fine line between very slow flying and stalling and I think that flying just above the stall should be more prominent in training it may just save your life.

 

John.

 

 

[rollerball]

Agree. Same with GA procedures. Most engine fails are not going to happen at 3500' agl - they'll be more likely at 500' agl. There won't be the luxury of time to run a long checklist. In my current RAAus training, I keep it very simple - following the 'aviate/navigate/communicate' sequence. happy days,

Unfortunately I haven't had time to read right through this thread but hope to do so later.

Re the above quote - communication in the event of an engine failure is a luxury. It's a distant third priority to getting the aircraft under control at its best glide speed (do you know what it is without looking it up?) and finding the best location in which to land (terrain, slope, obstacles, wind direction). Then you fly it the whole way in. Only when you've sorted out those things should you think about telling the world what's happening because they can't help you.

 

That's what mobile phones are for when you are standing by your undamaged, very silent aircraft ;)

 

 

[Hargraves]

Whenever possible all my approaches are glide approches, adjusting attitude, for airspeed as I was taught to do, for the obvious reason of thats whats required when the bugsmasher stops.and I think any BFR without an engine out landing practice is,nt the complete deal, cheers Hargraves

 

 

[SSCBD]

Whenever possible all my approaches are glide approches, adjusting attitude, for airspeed as I was taught to do, for the obvious reason of thats whats required when the bugsmasher stops.and I think any BFR without an engine out landing practice is,nt the complete deal, cheers Hargraves

Hargraves - the problem is that the engine may want to stop on the way up or anywhere else so you wont be on any approach. Plan for failure at takeoff is your worst problem especially the 150 ish to 500ft mark. Above that you should be bullet proof with a plan in advance. The engine will not wait for you.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you are going towards an area of "less than desired surface", do a climbing large orbit to get extra height while still above a suitable "forced landing" spot.. Changing fuel tanks similarly. Nice to have height or a field available if the selected tank has some feeding problem, you found out the hard way. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Saying a twin with one out won't get you much further than the accident site is not really true of modern twins. The max take off weight for a particular aerodrome, on a particular day is predicated on making a minimum (specified and very minimal ) climb angle or meeting the gradient needed to clear obstacles on the particular departure flight path.

 

It covers failure right at V1 (decision speed) the worst situation. Getting the plane to be manageable requires it be flown at or above VMC (a) (sometimes known as blue line speed). it's a control speed figure.( Rudder effectiveness). Next you have a severe power deficit, so clean the plane up and get it to climb. It will just do it if you get it spot on if you are on limit weight.

 

Once you are in cruise and have burned off some fuel, an inflight shut down is not much of a drama. You won't Normally) need full power on the remaining engine though you would prudently sit high on the entire approach profile, (just like you would do on an Ultralight) Your available cruise height will be lower (just like your Thruster with a BIG pax on a hot day).. Twins ARE better over Oceans and Tiger country.. ALL engines CAN fail. and need fuel in them. good hoses for coolant, fuel lines and spark plug leads that stay on.. Maintenance and inspection. Nev

 

 

[Hargraves]

If you lose your engine at any stage of take off your on approach weather you like it or not, if you maintain control the differance is where and what you hit. Cheers Hargraves

 

 

[Gravity]

Saying a twin with one out won't get you much further than the accident site is not really true of modern twins. The max take off weight for a particular aerodrome, on a particular day is predicated on making a minimum (specified and very minimal ) climb angle or meeting the gradient needed to clear obstacles on the particular departure flight path.It covers failure right at V1 (decision speed) the worst situation. Getting the plane to be manageable requires it be flown at or above VMC (a) (sometimes known as blue line speed). it's a control speed figure.( Rudder effectiveness). Next you have a severe power deficit, so clean the plane up and get it to climb. It will just do it if you get it spot on if you are on limit weight.

Once you are in cruise and have burned off some fuel, an inflight shut down is not much of a drama. You won't Normally) need full power on the remaining engine though you would prudently sit high on the entire approach profile, (just like you would do on an Ultralight) Your available cruise height will be lower (just like your Thruster with a BIG pax on a hot day).. Twins ARE better over Oceans and Tiger country.. ALL engines CAN fail. and need fuel in them. good hoses for coolant, fuel lines and spark plug leads that stay on.. Maintenance and inspection. Nev

That's actually incorrect, VMCa is NOT blue line speed, blue line is VYSE!

 

I'm not going to go into the complex perf requirements on twins as I believe it's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Identification of the failed engine needs to be both rapid and accurate and the propeller must be feathered whilst simultaneously keeping the airspeed at the best single engine climb speed, often referred to as “blue line” speed because of such a line often seen on analogue ASIs

 

 

[Dan197]

I wonder if powered approaches are letting pilots land without that ground rush sensation that you need to hold the nose down through to land safely without throttle?

Could you please elaborate on this?

 

 

[Dan197]

To open yet another debate I also agree with being able to turn a motor off completely, while overhead an airstrip and carry out a practise forced landing all the way to touchdown. This should only be done with a CFI on board and at a suitable strip that has safe options, at a time when it will not affect other traffic. I have done this and believe it is worthwhile to experience it. Having done it in a controlled & supervised fashion will help reduce the shock & possible panic when it eventually happens for real.

It’s not a practice forced landing if you’ve turned the engine off completely!

 

 

[farri]

It’s not a practice forced landing if you’ve turned the engine off completely!

Hi Dan, Could you please explain why not!

 

 

[facthunter]

Gravity, I didn't say VMC(a) is blue line speed I said it's above VMC (a) I try to keep stuff here as simple as possible when people are not directly involved in it. I'm only trying to state a principle of CONTROL( basically directional) and "performance" and respond to the fairly widespread belief a twin won't fly on one engine.. Nev

 

 

[phonetic]

My partner who is not a pilot or aviator, knows a ultralight aircraft with a sink rate of 5 feet a second controlled emergency landing is a lot safer than sitting on a road motorcycle hitting a car at 10kph, in fact rather wants me to fly ultralight aircraft than ride motorcycle on the road

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of people do both. In the air you can almost eliminate the "other" person affecting you, if you work at it. Nev

 

 

[Gravity]

Gravity, I didn't say VMC(a) is blue line speed I said it's above VMC (a) I try to keep stuff here as simple as possible when people are not directly involved in it. I'm only trying to state a principle of CONTROL( basically directional) and "performance" and respond to the fairly widespread belief a twin won't fly on one engine.. Nev

Better re read yr own comments, it's very obvious that's what you implied.

 

Anyway as I mentioned earlier this subject is beyond the scope of this thread really.

 

 

[facthunter]

Is your "new" job to pick up everything that's not as you would want it written?. It's MY style of presenting the facts I wish to address to this forum.. This is a site basically for people who are interested in flying Ultralights. A concept you seem to have some difficulty with. When you have some real experience with them you may see it differently.. It's NOT GA or Airlines. Nev

 

 

[Gravity]

Is you "new" job to pick up everything that's not as you would want it written?. It's MY style of presenting the facts I wish to address to this forum.. This is a site basically for people who are interested in flying Ultralights. A concept you seem to have some difficulty with. When you have some real experience with them you may see it differently.. It's NOT GA or Airlines. Nev

Listen time to put you on the ignore list but before I do get yr facts straight before you start being an "expert" and can't handle some feedback to your so called 'facts'! Your anger is not doing you any favours!

 

 

[facthunter]

I can only go on what you have written. All you say is" Misinformation". . Some people here actually do have a clue.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Listen time to put you on the ignore list but before I do get yr facts straight before you start being an "expert" and can't handle some feedback to your so called 'facts'! Your anger is not doing you any favours!

He wouldn’t be the one I would pick on for facts; driven a few in his time, when you had to fly them.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Could you please elaborate on this?

In most light draggy aircraft (at least the few I have flown) to land without throttle you need to maintain your airspeed down through what my instructor called the grownd rush (at around 50ish feet you get the feeling the ground is rushing up at you) and not round out too high. It is an automatic reaction to start pulling up once the ground rush starts and if you do do that with no throttle you will run out of airspeed too high and not have enough authority left for the final flare which will mean a rough landing at best or a stall from high enough to hurt.

Using powered approaches can and does remove that vertical ground rush feeling by flattening out the approach angle.

 

In my comment I was just wondering how many Pilots were spoiling themselves with the use of throttle and weren't experiencing the ground rush until they had an engine failure, and then not used to the ground rush were they pulling up/ rounding out too high and the stalling it in?

 

I personally use throttle on a lot of my landings but I also try and practice my no throttle landings regularly.

 

 

[SSCBD]

In most light draggy aircraft (at least the few I have flown) to land without throttle you need to maintain your airspeed down through what my instructor called the grownd rush (at around 50ish feet you get the feeling the ground is rushing up at you) and not round out too high. It is an automatic reaction to start pulling up once the ground rush starts and if you do do that with no throttle you will run out of airspeed too high and not have enough authority left for the final flare which will mean a rough landing at best or a stall from high enough to hurt.Using powered approaches can and does remove that vertical ground rush feeling by flattening out the approach angle.

 

In my comment I was just wondering how many Pilots were spoiling themselves with the use of throttle and weren't experiencing the ground rush until they had an engine failure, and then not used to the ground rush were they pulling up/ rounding out too high and the stalling it in?

 

I personally use throttle on a lot of my landings but I also try and practice my no throttle landings regularly.

I basically mix it up all the time, with high and slow then on a calm day almost a stall approach all the way down with power. Some low fast flat out short finals on certain strips, and cut the power when I know I will make the fence. Depends on my mood and passage at times. Always love doing a few circuits after a fly around especially in a good strong xwind.

 

 

[facthunter]

Obviously a stable powered approach will be flatter than a glide so the sink rate less and the flare can be less abrupt. People DO react to a high sink rate near the ground usually by pulling the stick back, (sometimes a little too much) I've often tongue in cheek referred to this as Real ground effect. Anyhow if you do this you may well balloon, and be sitting too high and too slow ready to fall to the ground like a sack of spuds in a rather uncontrolled manner. that might even damage more than your ego.. Prop strike bent U/C etc..

 

In turbulent conditions I generally use power. It's another control that gives you more chance of touching down where you want to in the attitude and at the speed you wanted. Gives you more say in where you end up. You probably shouldn't fly in such conditions really. Nev

 

 

[Snoopy]

A 95-10 ultralight. Four engine failures. 3 at below 200 AGL and one on crosswind joining the circuit at 1000. Walked away from one because it got dark, so I trailered the plane back, and flew away from the rest after fixing the cause of the failure on the same day. No damage due to the outlanding. First one, I just stared incredulously at the stationary prop for some time before I reacted, (not good in a low inertia ultralight), but the rest were just another day at the office, but without the noise, type landing. None of my engine failure training, ie find a field get to a downwind /base corner at 1000AGL and then land normally was any use. Not that close to the ground.

 

However my training did include to avoid overflying tiger country, so every landing although a bit bouncy was a good landing regardless of the dead stick. I look for suitable landing sites first and at the scenery second.

 

Engine failure should not be fatal in an ultralight. As long as you avoid tiger country and regardless what happens FLY THE PLANE, right through the crash.