My take-off crash 30 years ago was avoidable if I hadn’t fixated on what I’d been taught at “normal” airfields. Near max AUW, long grass, uphill didn’t cause it. I got airborne with more than half the runway left. I should have turned right immediately I was airborne, where the ground dropped away. Instead I continued on runway centre line, and aborted as I was not climbing and could see wires on the ridge.
I hope my nose-down reaction from many cable-breaks gliding 1959-64 is still there, if I have a loss of power at low level.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
I did Vx engine cuts at 50 feet in a modified Grand Caravan, and it was terrifying! Vy is not necessarily the best speed for a climb, but it is probably the best speed to be at for an EFATO!
Similarly, when I learned to fly one of the exercises before going solo was a simulated engine failure just after takeoff, at about 50’, and included full-stop landing on the remaining runway. Is that Canadian thing? 
The runway was 8’000 long. It was a) indeed terrifying the first time, and b) enlightening! And that in a Cherokee Cruiser. It must be even more dramatic in an aircraft as large as the Grand Caravan. One has very little time to go from a large nose-up attitude to glide nose down before a stall occurs, and then still have the presence of mind to actually flare. It’s a very good speed control exercise in quickly changing attitudes.
At many places, a bad takeoff accident cannot be avoided if the engine stops. It’s just the way land around airports has been built on…
Are takeoff problems getting more common? They might be if there was a generic maintenance problem, especially in the rental fleet.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
The simple thing to do to minimize risk during takeoff is to lower the nose once airborne, and allow the airplane to accelerate to at least Vy. From that speed, a glide following a sudden engine failure is much more possible than the silly Vx climbs I see from time to time. I did Vx engine cuts at 50 feet in a modified Grand Caravan, and it was terrifying! Vy is not necessarily the best speed for a climb, but it is probably the best speed to be at for an EFATO!
If departing from long runways (which obviously is a relative, but say in excess of 1000M for the typical SEP) it may be advantageous to initially climb away with Vx, gaining most altitude over distance, considering the option of an immediate landing on remaining runway (quick reaction and drills). On shorter runways without departure close-in obstacles ,Vy (often close to best glide) is not a bad idea for many reasons (including better cooling and less engine stress). On airplanes that have the choice of flaps up takeoffs (which most older certified designs have) this is also beneficial (provided runway length performance is not a limitation). Ultimately, a good predeparture consideration (call it briefing if you like) to where you´re immediately heading in the event of an engine out is key.
If one has the option to overfly the arrival airfield, this can be useful not only for planning the approach to land, but also for strategically planning ahead for the next takeoff – if the pilot has the excess capacity (experience etc.) to do so.
I was getting some IFR instruction. PA28. 9000 foot runway. As I rotated the LHS engine cover popped up. I was about to lower the nose, and get it back onto the 8000 feet of tarmac remaining. My instructor shoved me out of the way, grabbed the yoke, immediately turned left and buzzed the tower, back round the short circuit at 100 foot, and landed.
I was totally mortified. On the ground I just sat looking at him. I told him I would never fly with him again. He wondered what the fuss was about. You could have killed me was my drole response. I can see very clearly how take off accidents can occur.
boscomantico wrote:
Although not Diamond, here is another terrible one: ASN
This one was 100% avoidable: article
Quote:
However, he didn’t roll all the way back as usual to get enough of a run-up, but instead took off unannounced on a much shorter section of the runway. “We can’t understand why he did that in any way,” says Schumacher. “He is In the end, he took off, but was too slow, so the current broke off and the plane tipped to the right into the embankment.”
Seems like he didn’t do any back tracking at all but took off from the roughly 200m between the displaced threshold and the end of the paved area.
Yeager wrote:
it may be advantageous to initially climb away with Vx,
Although I understand the reasoning I tend to not agree here. When climbing with Vx the reaction if engine out appears has to be very quick and aggressive to not stall the plane. I think that’s more dangerous than landing anywhere. In addition, if you happen to depart with a very low fuel in the selected tank the engine could starve if the fuel goes back in the tank, that could else run some more minutes, on a shallower climb.
However, there are circumstances where I would in fact do what you propose, e.g. if there’s definitely no chance to land anywhere off-field, e.g. on a night departure on a long runway. Other than that I would always take some knots of speed margin, because often enough it’s the stall that kills people down low. But I do think one should be able to leave a plane in one piece that is actively flown until the very end.
UdoR wrote:
Although I understand the reasoning I tend to not agree here. When climbing with Vx the reaction if engine out appears has to be very quick and aggressive to not stall the plane. I think that’s more dangerous than landing anywhere. In addition, if you happen to depart with a very low fuel in the selected tank the engine could starve if the fuel goes back in the tank, that could else run some more minutes, on a shallower climb.
In aviation there should never be a need for “aggressive” maneuvering/handling of an aircraft – this could very easily be counter-productive, nor is it necessary to avoid a stall in any airplane I´ve ever flown. Prompt and assertive responses/actions when needed be – should be taught and appreciated as a integrated, natural part of flying airplanes.
We are all a product of how we were once trained, and for the professional pilots how we´re continuously trained, and how our experiences over time form us as pilots.
Fundamentally, all certified airplanes comes with performance data, including short field and obstacle limited performance data, and the associated “alternate” normal flight procedures that this data is based/calculated on. Vx is a performance speed used for certain performance calculations and like other conditions (such as configuration items (flaps), static power etc.) this has to be adhered to if you want to fly-by-the-book. Therefore, all levels of pilot training, including PPL training, have to include training and practicing takeoff with climb at Vx and engine out simulation during this phase. It´s particular important that the student pilot (any pilot!) understands what´s critical about an engine out during this phase – and what to do. Every single SEP takeoff briefing (should) includes 3 critical engine out considerations; 1. engine failure on ground, 2. engine failure after takeoff with sufficient runway remaining, 3. engine failure after takeoff with insufficient runway remaining, and most important a consideration to the actual takeoff conditions (special items emphasis – in this case Vx climb).
Less proficient pilots may want to refrain from using Vx, but then they should equally refrain from taking off under conditions requiring this (performance).
Regarding the fuel system technical argument about low fuel and fuel starvation – this should not happen on a certified aircraft for as long as you comply with the AFM. IF fuel starvation flying at Vx is an aircraft type specific concern, you´ll have a normal operations limitation on min fuel required before takeoff in the AFM.
Assuming you follow most national (or EASA/FAA) authorities regulations on minimum fuel required for flight, I don´t know of any certified aircraft having this type of limitation. I understand that side slipping and prolonged flying in certain out of balance conditions can lead to fuel starvation, even with a substantial amount of fuel in wing tanks, but I would consider that abnormal flight operations (if prolonged). From a more practical point of view. If you light on fuel, you´re likely light on takeoff weight, and you RoC would be equally high and you should be clear of obstacles quickly (as in less than 30 seconds), I don´t know of any carb. system (on a certified aircraft) that don´t hold that at max power setting.
To sum it up. If one has concerns climbing at Vx, when needed, then train it and train it more often, until one is comfortable. The same can be said about stalls and other maneuvers – if one is not comfortable with them, then train it and train it more, until one is comfortable. The sky can be a hostile place, but we need to command it, or stay on the ground under conditions we´re not proficient to aviate in. Finally, in normal unrestricted performance situations (for most of us – most of the time), there is no reason climb at Vx and it´s a bad choice for many reasons, and Vy is a much more comfortable choice.
On the same note and just an additional consideration. Flying at performance speeds is something that carries over and onto commercial, complex and advanced aircraft type flying (performance and noise abatement).
