The following is probably not a new thought to those with tons of hours,
but an idea gained from one of my instructors that has stuck with me.
When entering the pattern for "landing"
at a new/unfamiliar airport, I make a note of the surrounding terrain and
obstacles (at both RW ends) so that if I ever have an engine out on the
subsequent departure I already have an idea where the best off-field options
are.
I added it to the end of my GUMPPSS-S ("Surrounding
terrain")
Thus, my departure bailout decisions
are made before landing.
Making a note of these area(s) on approach
is helpful, because you can’t often see well over the cowl on departure.
Also, “Best option” is sometimes subjective: trees beat
cliff, swamp beats trees, field beats swamp, road beats building, emergency
access, etc. Otherwise a lot to think about the instant the engine sputters.
This is also an argument for a "normal"
pattern versus a "straight-in", even if traffic is light and I'm feeling
lazy.
If the departure wind is light and/or nearly
direct-cross, I'll choose the direction where the best bailout options were
noted during the prior approach.
If the bailout options all suck, I’ll
announce “remaining” for the departure and turn a relatively early cross-wind
(300 ft) and down-wind (and then climb out of the pattern). While I don’t
harbor any illusions of making the runway I just left from if the engine quite
on departure, I might be able to glide/crash nearer the airport property if
that were the only option.
I use the word bailout. Not because
I have a chute, but because at that point in my mind it represents that I’m
more concerned with me (and pass) than the airplane. I’m still
going to “fly” it all the way to the ground AND until it stops.
Hard to fully predict how I'll actually react
if ever faced with the situation, but I'd like to believe that choosing the
departure bail-out site before each landing and having a picture of it in my
mind strongly biases me toward that decision.
Open to comments.
Rick