Small aircraft engine seizure. Off airport night landing.

Attributes
ACN	129739
Time
Date	198911
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : bos
State Reference	MA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : bos tracon : dca
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear
Flight Phase	descent other landing other other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	other personnel other
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 500 flight time type : 450
ASRS Report	129739
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Experience	flight time type : 65
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : declared emergency flight crew : overcame equipment problem none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft

Narrative:

The flight was a training flight in preparation for an INS chkride. The PIC had approximately 65 hours total fixed wing experience, while the safety pilot had about 400-500 hours in type. After some practice instrument approachs, we were returning VFR to our home airport when the engine seized. The safety pilot was flying while the PIC was putting away approach plates, foggles, etc. We were monitoring bos approach on 124.4, after having been dropped by manchester approach. We were only monitoring bos because, in our experience, they will not provide traffic advisories in this area at this pilot. After we declared an emergency, bos attempted to vector us to a small, unlit, uncontrolled field. This was about 45 mins after dark. After trying to find the airport unsuccessfully, we elected to land in a cow pasture, and there was no damage to the aircraft, nor injuries to the people on board. Suggestions: 1) bos probably should not have tried to vector us to an unlit airport when it was that dark. Instead, they probably should have pointed out that finding any airport within gliding distance was unlikely, and to prepare for an off-airport landing. In any case, we soon came to that conclusion anyway. 2) the PIC (lower time) ended up flying the approach, when the safety pilot probably would have done a better job, especially since the helicopter instincts of the PIC caused the approach to be quite high, missing the original field which had been selected. Had the safety pilot suggested that he be allowed to fly the approach, the PIC certainly would have agreed. This probably was a crew coordination problem, although this very eventuality had been discussed before the flight. 3) the fact that the safety pilot was flying from the right seat where the engine gauges were difficult to view may have been a contributing factor; although at this time, this is difficult to know for sure. Engine gauges in the center of the INS panel would probably have been better. 4) although the PIC had originally intended to fly at 4500' MSL, upon departing the airport the controller asked if the pilot wanted 2500', to which the PIC agreed. Higher would have been safer.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ENGINE SEIZURE. OFF ARPT NIGHT LNDG.

Narrative: THE FLT WAS A TRNING FLT IN PREPARATION FOR AN INS CHKRIDE. THE PIC HAD APPROX 65 HRS TOTAL FIXED WING EXPERIENCE, WHILE THE SAFETY PLT HAD ABOUT 400-500 HRS IN TYPE. AFTER SOME PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APCHS, WE WERE RETURNING VFR TO OUR HOME ARPT WHEN THE ENG SEIZED. THE SAFETY PLT WAS FLYING WHILE THE PIC WAS PUTTING AWAY APCH PLATES, FOGGLES, ETC. WE WERE MONITORING BOS APCH ON 124.4, AFTER HAVING BEEN DROPPED BY MANCHESTER APCH. WE WERE ONLY MONITORING BOS BECAUSE, IN OUR EXPERIENCE, THEY WILL NOT PROVIDE TFC ADVISORIES IN THIS AREA AT THIS PLT. AFTER WE DECLARED AN EMER, BOS ATTEMPTED TO VECTOR US TO A SMALL, UNLIT, UNCONTROLLED FIELD. THIS WAS ABOUT 45 MINS AFTER DARK. AFTER TRYING TO FIND THE ARPT UNSUCCESSFULLY, WE ELECTED TO LAND IN A COW PASTURE, AND THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO THE ACFT, NOR INJURIES TO THE PEOPLE ON BOARD. SUGGESTIONS: 1) BOS PROBABLY SHOULD NOT HAVE TRIED TO VECTOR US TO AN UNLIT ARPT WHEN IT WAS THAT DARK. INSTEAD, THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT THAT FINDING ANY ARPT WITHIN GLIDING DISTANCE WAS UNLIKELY, AND TO PREPARE FOR AN OFF-ARPT LNDG. IN ANY CASE, WE SOON CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION ANYWAY. 2) THE PIC (LOWER TIME) ENDED UP FLYING THE APCH, WHEN THE SAFETY PLT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE HELI INSTINCTS OF THE PIC CAUSED THE APCH TO BE QUITE HIGH, MISSING THE ORIGINAL FIELD WHICH HAD BEEN SELECTED. HAD THE SAFETY PLT SUGGESTED THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO FLY THE APCH, THE PIC CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE AGREED. THIS PROBABLY WAS A CREW COORD PROB, ALTHOUGH THIS VERY EVENTUALITY HAD BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE THE FLT. 3) THE FACT THAT THE SAFETY PLT WAS FLYING FROM THE RIGHT SEAT WHERE THE ENG GAUGES WERE DIFFICULT TO VIEW MAY HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR; ALTHOUGH AT THIS TIME, THIS IS DIFFICULT TO KNOW FOR SURE. ENG GAUGES IN THE CENTER OF THE INS PANEL WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN BETTER. 4) ALTHOUGH THE PIC HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO FLY AT 4500' MSL, UPON DEPARTING THE ARPT THE CTLR ASKED IF THE PLT WANTED 2500', TO WHICH THE PIC AGREED. HIGHER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.