2006 CTSW forced landing after engine failure

[kinoons]

So it’s been about 10 days and I feel as if I can discuss what happened. 
 

I was with my instructor on a short hop from Santa Fe to Albuquerque to get signed off for class C airspace. Preflight went without issue. Flight down to KABQ was without incident, performed a single T&G, and proceeded back towards KSAF.  
 

roughly at the midpoint between KSAF and KABQ I looked at the engine instruments and noticed the oil PSI was falling. I pointed this out to my instructor (and aircraft owner) and we elected to continue straight towards KSAF to avoid a turn, and also avoid a metro area towards KABQ. 
 

At the time I was over some uneven terrain east of I25. I elected to bring the aircraft closer to the interstate as we knew there were multiple open desert areas for landing if needed, and we’d be closer to help if we needed it. We also began to very slowly climb to try and keep our best airspeed toward the field but also buy us the added benefit of altitude if the motor did stop. We also discussed our options if the engine did infact stop, to include the BRS. 
 

The oil PSI continued to fall (from roughly 18 when I first noticed to as low as 4)  we only received an alarm when the oil temp also fell (no alarm for the pressure). At the same time I noted a change in the sound from the motor. We lost engine power within 30 seconds as it completely stopped.

At this point we were roughly 2000 feet AGL, 9 miles from KSAF, and just immediately crossing a Mesa in the desert. Once we lost power i put the nose down and asked my instructor to take the aircraft at that point. I have roughly 30 hours, he has thousands. There were multiple open desert fields, near both the interstate and access roads, that appeared to be pretty level and clear of debris, so we quickly agreed to make the landing vs use the chute. Santa Fe tower was quickly notified of our plan and the transponder was changed to 7700. 
 

We quickly descended to our intended area for landing, deployed 40 deg flaps, and slowed to 42kts before touchdown. The touchdown was pretty firm. We traveled across the desert on the ground approximately 150 feet before the nose gear hit the only &$#%£€$ rock in the field, collapsed the gear, and flipped the aircraft over. Here’s the result.

I received a laceration on my head, some sore ribs, but I’m otherwise okay. My instructor was uninjured. Unfortunately the aircraft is a loss.

it is worth noting that there was oil streaked across the entire bottom of the aircraft. The aircraft was approximately 10 hours after its 100hr inspection, had 1400ish hours on the Hobbs, and had an oil temperature sensor replaced the day prior. This was the first flight since that repair. We had 30gal of fuel prior to take off, and oil was on the upper 1/3 of the area on the dipstick for our preflight, so no clue there to expect any issues. 

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Sorry for this terrible event!  But all things considered, it turned out quite well.  Airplanes are always expendable in these situations, and the airplane did it's job, sacrificing its life to save the occupants.  It sounds like everybody involved kept a level head and did what needed to be done.  You were smart to hand off control to the instructor, and it sounds like he made a good minimum speed landing.  Sucks that you guys struck a rock on the rollout, but Mr. Murphy is always lurking around airplanes!  I'm glad the injuries were minor and you both get to tell the story later.

It sounds suspiciously like your mechanic didn't secure an oil line or other oil system component after finishing his/her work.  I would look over the engine with a critical eye and find out what failed.  If the mechanic's work is the cause it's time for a calm but firm conversation with them.  You might want to talk to an attorney first.

[kinoons]

I believe the saying goes something along the lines of once the motor stops in flight the insurance company owns the aircraft. 
 

You’re correct, all things considered we turned out okay. The owner says reps from Rotax are coming out to inspect the engine to see why it stopped - well, why it had no oil in it. We’re pretty sure why it stopped. 

[Skunkworks85]

Glad to hear you're ok!

It will be interesting to see how this turns out and to find the root cause of the issue. 

Any ideas on what you hit your head on? The spar box?

Anything you would have done differently? 

[Runtoeat]

Thank you for your post.  As we all are, I'm extremely happy that you and your passenger are OK but sorry to hear you lost your CT.  You and your CFI did a great job preparing for your off airport landing.  Controlled off airport landings in light sport tricycle gear aircraft normally end badly for the aircraft but seem to allow occupants to walk away most times.  Our front gear is the Achilles heel of our aircraft  The front gear is not capable of surviving even minimum rough terrain.  Once the gear folds the seat belts need to be very tight to keep the upper body from hitting the spar box or the instrument panel during the probable flip over of the airplane.  We all would welcome your thought on things you feel you did right and other things you may wish you would have done.  A couple thoughts that come to my mind is to ask if you considered landing on a road if there was one available?  Another thought is if you would elect to pull the 'chute now that you have experienced landing on what appeared to be hospitable terrain from a few hundred feet but which turned out to be inhospitable after landing?

[airhound]

Fortunately you were in a high wing. Good job!

[CTSW Bob]

Glad you are both ok.  Looking at all that field I would have landed there too.  If you pulled the chute, you know the plane is a write off.  With all that landing area it was a smart move.  Unfortunately, the outcome is the same as the plane is totaled.  plane shopping is fun though.  Let’s see what we can salvage...engine...nope.  Airframe...nope.  Avionics....probably.  Chute  and rocket....yep! 
 

 

[CTSW Bob]

BTW, that was a “GOOD” landing. 

 

[AGLyme]

I flew near that area just last week... looked amazingly inhospitable.  I literally thought, what if we have an engine out, where would we land?  I did this exercise a jillion times and each time I looked down, I couldn't find a place that was flat and/or easy for rescue to find... and the plane I was in did not have a chute.  Great work, in the scheme of things, a perfect A+ ending.

[FastEddieB]

On the one hand, all’s well that ends well. Good job!

On the other hand, at least in the Cirrus world, the odds of a good outcome go up enormously by pulling the chute. More than a handful of fatalities from attempted landings where a chute pull was a virtually guaranteed outcome. Fields that look wonderful from the air can conceal all sorts of hazards down low.

On the other, other hand, LSA’s can land a lot slower, and hence carry a lot less energy if things go poorly at the end.

So, it’s complicated, but unless over a runway or truly hospitable terrain, a chute pull is usually statistically the best option.

[Skunkworks85]

1 hour ago, FastEddieB said:

On the one hand, all’s well that ends well. Good job!

On the other hand, at least in the Cirrus world, the odds of a good outcome go up enormously by pulling the chute. More than a handful of fatalities from attempted landings where a chute pull was a virtually guaranteed outcome. Fields that look wonderful from the air can conceal all sorts of hazards down low.

On the other, other hand, LSA’s can land a lot slower, and hence carry a lot less energy if things go poorly at the end.

So, it’s complicated, but unless over a runway or truly hospitable terrain, a chute pull is usually statistically the best option.

 

I don't think the statistics are there to back up the specific system(install/whole system, not the BRS in specific) in the CT aircraft,  I have looked through all the NTSB reports for the Flight Design aircrafts incidents that have been documented, There are a handful (maybe 3) of times the chute was deployed and the AC went on to land despite the fact the chute was pulled. 

Now, I'm not saying that it does not work. But simply comparing the CT aircraft to a tried and true BRS system in the cirrus is probably not a fair comparison. 

for what its worth, I would not hesitate to use the system. 

[cdarza]

Glad to hear pilots safe - so sorry for the CT loss.     Look forward to the inspection results.     As to the landing,  from the picture that looks like a engine out haven - but as was already mentioned, looks can be deceiving.   I fly in the tropics so i typically dont have any fields at all - My engine out option is 99% gonna be in the water.  

[Skunkworks85]

31 minutes ago, cdarza said:

Glad to hear pilots safe - so sorry for the CT loss.     Look forward to the inspection results.     As to the landing,  from the picture that looks like a engine out haven - but as was already mentioned, looks can be deceiving.   I fly in the tropics so i typically dont have any fields at all - My engine out option is 99% gonna be in the water.  

Is that a chute then?

[cdarza]

1 hour ago, Skunkworks85 said:

Is that a chute then?

Good question.  I really don't know the correct answer however, as of today my decision would be to not pull the chute and i would risk the water landing.     I would gladly listen to opinions on this.      The worry of this water landing is the plane flipping over and/or being knocked unconscious long enough that drowning would be cause of death  

[Duane Jefts]

18 minutes ago, cdarza said:

Good question.  I really don't know the correct answer however, as of today my decision would be to not pull the chute and i would risk the water landing.     I would gladly listen to opinions on this.      The worry of this water landing is the plane flipping over and/or being knocked unconscious long enough that drowning would be cause of death  

Complicated question with many possible answers. Would need weather conditions as well as sea Condition to make a judgment Call. If the wind conditions over the water are 40 kts And you landed into the wind then you can theoretically touchdown at zero ground speed. Under the same conditions if you pull the chute, Then you would hit the water at 40 kts Ground speed, or water speed if you prefer. In my Coast Guard career I have seen a number of airplanes land in the ocean.In a tricycle gear like a CT you can expect to be upside down in your seatbelt and that is not an easy position to get out of unless you have your seatbelt cutter handy. There are a lot more considerations but I will leave you with this information for now.

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

Doing a fair amount of over water work, I fly with a sailing life vest on, the thin front self inflating type, it's pretty comfy.  Don't buy an auto inflating (pops when wet) boating type if you consider one of these, only go with the manually activated type (pull cord).  If you wear a traditional life vest it may hamper your ability to swim out from under an inverted, and sinking, situation. 

For major water crossings I carry a small dry bag, it contains a portable GPS, portable COM, and a small light one person inflatable boat (like the 20 dollar items from Walmart), as well as a mirror signal device, flashlight, and other trinkets.  I think a dye pack and strobe would be smart to include but don't have them.

My plan has always been set up into the wind for the flare over the water, and as it stalls about 5' off the deck, I'm bailing out the door, the ditch bag makes a handle with how it folds.  No worse than those water ski wipe outs from my earlier days.  And I'd be picking the bow of a pleasure boat or lake freighter to be pulling this off.  Great Lakes have lots of traffic in summer, and I won't cross them in winter months.

Now, all that shared.  I also fully understand winds aloft, altitude selected, and airplane glide performance.  Make a plan as to location in crossing to proceed forward, or 180 back.  Even in crossing Lake MI there is a very small window of time you can't make it back to either shore, providing you're high enough.

Ditching in water is a very high risk situation, but a bit of simple preparedness changes those odd's immensely.  And not to sound too gruesome, if you have a lift vest on at least your body will be recovered.  Your family will appreciate the closure.

 

[FastEddieB]

Maybe we could start a thread called “Good Fields Gone Bad”!

The majority of my training, instructing and flying was done in and around S FL. Get just a little west of Miami or Ft. Lauderdale and you’re over either Everglades or Broward County Water Management areas, which is swampy and largely very inhospitable. But there were always nice looking tracks on top of berms and the like and I always kept them in mind were an engine to fail.

A Cirrus with a failed engine attempted a landing on one of these enticing options. I’m sure it looked great from the air…

From ground level not so much…

[

Tearing the main gear off a Cirrus takes no small amount of energy. Again, all’s well that ends well, but with a 60 kt plus touchdown speed in a Cirrus, there’s a lot that could have gone very wrong, and a CAPS pull into the swamp would have likely been a safer option. Except for the alligators and snakes I suppose!
 

 

[Jim Meade]

Couple of questions on the specific incident in the OP

1.  What harness were you wearing, was it tight at the start, and did either of you tighten it before impact?

2.  Did either of you strike your head on the spar box at any time?

2a.  Was either of you ever knocked unconscious?  (BTW - you might want to ignore this question unless you first talk to an AME because it can have ramifications in getting a medical later on, if you lost consciousness - I don't remember how long but it matters how long, as well, if I understand correctly.  I'm not an AME but I had this situation arise once and it affected a medical.)

2b. Where did you rib injuries come from?

3.  Did you unlatch the door before touchdown?  Why or why not (including "I didn't think of it" or "i wanted structural integrity" or anything else)?

4.  If you opened the door after impact, was there any difficulty in unlatching or opening the door?

5.  How much fuel was on board at impact and did you have a fuel leak?  If so, from where and how much?

6.  Did the ELT go off by itself?  Did you set it off manually before or after the impact?

7.  What was the disposition of the rocket and how did the emergency people deal with it when they arrived?  Did they know about it?  Did you warn them?

 

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Ah, "to chute or not to chute" -- the age old question with a thousand answers!

I generally contend that in an engine out in the CT, my plan is to find a landing spot and set up for a landing.  If anything doesn't look close to ideal down to short final, I'll use the chute.  I agree with Eddie on this, statistically you are better off under the parachute than in an off-airport landing.  That's not just Cirrus, it's all BRS deployments when made within the deployment envelope of the system (in the CT's case, the entire flight envelope of the airframe down to pretty low altitude).

Off airport landings end in fatalities about 25-30% of the time, whereas BRS deployments within parameters end in fatalities very close to zero.  If anybody knows of such a case I'd like to see it, I have not found one yet.  Even outside parameters BRS does remarkably well.  Even though the system in the CT doesn't have many "in the wild" deployments, it's a system FD worked with BRS to design, and other BRS-blessed systems have performed as I described, so there is no reason to assume the FD system would not perform similarly.

Most of aviation safety is an odds game.  Don't fly in weather where the odds are against you, don't fly if you suspect mechanical issues, don't make the "impossible turn"...etc.  Basically try to set yourself up for survival.  In this case I think the odds favor a BRS deployment over an off-airport landing, but of course circumstances can change that.

I have also flown that area between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, and it's pretty desolate.  Given the near-pristine landing zone in the picture, I very well might have attempted the landing as well.  There are dirt roads out there and some paved but little traveled roads as well, I might have tried to aim for one of those if possible.  I have a crappy 121.5MHz ELT, but I carry a 406MHz PLB that is registered with NOAA; if time/altitude allowed I'd have tried to activate that during the descent.

Everybody has their own risk calculus with regard to emergencies, and I'm not saying that the above is "the best".  I'm just describing my reasoning on the matter, which I think is largely based on logic and maximizing the chances of a good outcome.  Reasonable & rational people can certainly come to other conclusions. 

 

 

[FlyingMonkey]

52 minutes ago, Jim Meade said:

3.  Did you unlatch the door before touchdown?  Why or why not (including "I didn't think of it" or "i wanted structural integrity" or anything else)?
 

That's an interesting question and another point of potential debate.  Personally, I think I'd leave the doors closed/latched, for a few reasons:

*  If the landing goes very badly, if the door is unlatched, it's possible that the door will fly open and an occupant could flail outside the cabin and strike something, or something could intrude through the door and strike an occupant.  I saw this kind of injury a lot in car accidents when I was a Police Officer.

*  The cabin structure ("egg") has the maximum structural rigidity and and strength with the doors in place and secured.

*  Metal airplanes often deform and can crush a door closed.  Composites in general and carbon fiber in particular tends to shred/shatter and not deform/crush, so it's much less likely that the door area would deform the door closed.  Plus the sill/latching pins are designed in such a way that it seems very unlikely that a door could stick in a way a normal adult could not push/kick it free.  And in the case that does happen, there are two doors unlike something like a Musketeer or Cherokee...at least one of them is very likely usable.

 

Just my thoughts, again reasonable people can disagree.

[kinoons]

To answer a few questions

I believe I hit my head on the spar box, but I don't know for sure. I did pull the harness (lap and over shoulder) straps tight as we began to descend, but apparently not tight enough. there was not any LOC.

The plexiglass window to the door was broken on the rollover. I remember looking for the latch to open the door and not finding it due to spatial disorientation from being upside down. I was looking where the latch should be when we were right side up. Since the window was broken, I crawled out the broken window. 

In regards to landing on a road - The only two available were the interstate which had considerable traffic on it, and a small two lane road exiting the interstate. We never considered that road as it was very small. 

We did consider the chute, as when we first noticed the PSI issue we were over some very uneven terrain. But as we got to the mesa top there was plentiful flat open areas. We're also both familiar with the area so we knew that the ground was mostly flat with few large obstacles. We were also concerned about not having control with the chute - drifting onto the freeway or off the edge of the mesa. In retrospect those were likely not an issue.

There was a fuel leak after the turn over - I'm not sure from where. I just know we could smell fuel, and my tablet got some fuel on it. We should have had roughly 26 gal of fuel at the time of the landing. 

We told the FD about the unused rocket - I don't believe they did anything with it, but I don't know for sure. 

The ELT activated automatically. 

I'm not sure where the rib pain has come from - best guess is the harness on the rollover. Its there but certainly not terrible. 

In retrospect - I believe I would use the chute next time. Even with the great amount of open land/field my understanding is the forces in the landing with the chute would likely have been less than our off field landing. 

[FlyingMonkey]

Fuel was probably dumping out the vents and maybe the filler cap seals if they were not great.  Also maybe from the upside-down carbs.

[FlyingMonkey]

3 hours ago, FastEddieB said:

Tearing the main gear off a Cirrus takes no small amount of energy. Again, all’s well that ends well, but with a 60 kt plus touchdown speed in a Cirrus, there’s a lot that could have gone very wrong, and a CAPS pull into the swamp would have likely been a safer option. Except for the alligators and snakes I suppose!

 

There was an article in Aviation Safety magazine once plotting touchdown speed versus statistical chance of fatality.  At 35-40kt the chance was very low, IIRC less than 10%, but the curve was exponential so at 80kt touchdown speed the chances of fatality was something like 75-80%.  I think at 60kt it was around 50/50.

Also I read that the RV series is particularly bad at off airport landings for their touchdown speed...something like 60% end in fatalities.  That did not include the RV-12.

[FastEddieB]

7 minutes ago, kinoons said:

We were also concerned about not having control with the chute - drifting onto the freeway or off the edge of the mesa. In retrospect those were likely not an issue.

I expressed similar misgivings early on in my Cirrus experience. I imagined being a hapless passenger as the plane under CAPS drifted into a fuel farm or a power station or into the path of a semi or Lord knows what. Each is of course possible - and terrifying -  but with over 100 successful Cirrus pulls the real-life probability of such horrible outcomes seems quite small.

Let me be clear - you done good! Under stress there’s little time to weigh options and always make what in retrospect tells us might have been a better decision. Don’t sweat it for a minute. 

[AGLyme]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

The cabin structure ("egg") has the maximum structural rigidity and and strength with the doors in place and secured.

That's what I was thinking... unlatching a CT door before a crash landing would be like removing part of the egg.  I would leave my doors latched too...