More Thoughts About Practicing Engine Failure On Take-Off

Thanks for your insights again, Colin. I think that will will have to agree to disagree on this one.

If I understand your position, you agree that practicing an engine-out return to the field from 700 AGL on take-off is not more inherently dangerous than practicing engine-out at other points in the pattern, but you assert that the probability of an engine-out situation elsewhere in the pattern is greater and thus justifies the risk of practicing for those situations. Additionally, you put forward that if there is an engine-out at 700 AGL, the pilot will generally be better off performing a straight-ahead landing than performing a return to the field. Finally, you believe that engine-out on take-off can be properly practiced at a safe altitude, especially with expert use of the G1000.

You comments don’t increase my perception of the risk posed by practicing an engine-out situation at 700 AGL on take-off. I continue to believe the the maneuver can be performed reliably and safely. I accept that while the maneuver poses a greater risk than, say, straight and level flight at 5,000 AGL, the experience and preparedness provided by the training offset the relatively small risk.

I disagree that a pilot will “normally” be better off with a straight-ahead landing than attempting to return to the field with engine-out at 700 AGL. I think the disagreement stems from our different expectations of what is “normal”. I fly out of Midway—an commercial airport in the middle of a dense residential area. A straight-ahead landing into anything in the forward 90 degree arc is certainly not safe! When measured against that, “risking” a return to the field from 700 AGL looks very wise. When I’ve asked other pilots, including CFIs and my DPE, about handling an engine-out on take-off out of Midway when a return to the field cannot be accomplished (i.e., a straight-ahead landing in the only option), the advise is always the same: “pick the softest, cheapest thing to crash into”. I won’t risk plowing into a 3 year-old’s bedroom when a return to the field is possible at 700 AGL. Further, even if the worst should occur on my attempted return to the field, proximity to the field will have the advantage of receiving quick response by MDW’s airport emergency personnel.

Also of note is that when I practiced this maneuver, it was night and the only thing in front of me was a large black spot surrounded by lighted stuff I knew I didn’t want to land on. It seems inadvisable to attempt a landing into an unlit area with unknown obstacles when a return to the field is can be made.

I should also note that the DA40 I fly doesn’t have a G1000, so leveraging that isn’t an option. Further, unless the G1000 has synthetic vision capabilities of which I’m not aware, marking the virtual runway end point and heading at 5000 AGL and trying to land on it is very different than actually landing on a runway. I don’t know where I first heard the adage, but I’ll repeat it: “Nothing changes a pilot’s behavior like proximity to the ground.”

Given the above, I maintain that practicing the engine-out at 700 AGL on take-off is not a poor aeronautical decision in a DA40.