My first instructor liked to have me practice emergency landings over rural
Oregon. Although we observed basic airspace rules, we'd get down below
treetop levels, short final, maybe 100' or less before go around. Once, I
could see the startled expression on a farmer's face as he watched us. On a
couple of occasions, I thought we were actually going to land. Birds took
flight, etc. Subsequent instructors and examiners always called it "good"
well above that so we never got that low.

My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
farmer. The instructor even said so.)


-c
CP-ASEL-IA, CFI student

On Feb 26, 6:02 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> My first instructor liked to have me practice emergency landings over rural
> Oregon. Although we observed basic airspace rules, we'd get down below
> treetop levels, short final, maybe 100' or less before go around. Once, I
> could see the startled expression on a farmer's face as he watched us. On a
> couple of occasions, I thought we were actually going to land. Birds took
> flight, etc. Subsequent instructors and examiners always called it "good"
> well above that so we never got that low.
>
> My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
> teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
> given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
> farmer. The instructor even said so.)
>
> -c
> CP-ASEL-IA, CFI student

Times have changed and the ground folk are a bit more wary of
airplanes since 9/11.

N Numbers are easy to read when you can "read the farmer's
expression."

A better CFI ploy is to get acquainted with some private grass strip
owners and do some practice there. Students usually have no idea there
is an airfield "right down there."

Dan

On Feb 26, 3:02*pm, "gatt" > wrote:

> My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
> teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
> given the 500' rule? * (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
> farmer. *The instructor even said so.)

No, I would say about 5' rule. But i wouldn't do it where there were
people, structures, or vehicles in the area (cows don't count).

-robert, CFII

gatt wrote:
> My first instructor liked to have me practice emergency landings over rural
> Oregon. Although we observed basic airspace rules, we'd get down below
> treetop levels, short final, maybe 100' or less before go around. Once, I
> could see the startled expression on a farmer's face as he watched us. On a
> couple of occasions, I thought we were actually going to land. Birds took
> flight, etc. Subsequent instructors and examiners always called it "good"
> well above that so we never got that low.
>
> My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
> teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
> given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
> farmer. The instructor even said so.)

I don't know about 'appropriate', but my
instructor had no problem with '50 with
no animals or people around.

Even better is to the ground. My instructor
loved to pull the power when we were within
gliding range of an airport with no traffic.
I flew it down all the way to wheel stop
several times that way.

gatt wrote:
> My first instructor liked to have me practice emergency landings over rural
> Oregon. Although we observed basic airspace rules, we'd get down below
> treetop levels, short final, maybe 100' or less before go around. Once, I
> could see the startled expression on a farmer's face as he watched us. On a
> couple of occasions, I thought we were actually going to land. Birds took
> flight, etc. Subsequent instructors and examiners always called it "good"
> well above that so we never got that low.
>
> My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
> teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
> given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
> farmer. The instructor even said so.)
>
>
> -c
> CP-ASEL-IA, CFI student
>
>
>


There are three factors common to all forced landings;
1. Control of the aircraft (Fly the airplane)
2. Picking the right spot based on aircraft position, wind, and terrain.
3. Setting up for and flying the approach (obvious)

If these three factors are accomplished, for the purposes of instruction
and training, the actual touchdown can be assumed.

I NEVER advocate using the mixture and a stopped prop in forced landing
training. The reason for this should be obvious but I always mention it
just in case someone misses the point.
Taking into consideration the effects on glide from a stopped prop as
opposed to an idling engine, it doesn't take long to realize that
setting up ANY forced landing approach whether it be with an idling
engine or with the engine completely dead, requires setting up that
approach based on THE AVAILABLE VISUAL CUES as they relate to the
position of the aircraft at all times from the intended landing site.
Based on this single fact, it should be apparent that if a pilot is
flying the airplane properly, that pilot will be making the approach
based on WHATEVER THE REAL TIME VISUAL CUES are telling him/her. This
means that prop stopped or windmilling, a properly trained pilot will be
executing a forced landing approach compensating AUTOMATICALLY to
achieve a key position based on what the visual cues are telling them.
Considering this, there should NEVER be a need to pull the mixture on a
student. Doing this can easily turn a practice session into an actual
forced landing.
I advocate using the airport for power off approaches to sharpen the
ability to properly fly the airplane based on seeking a key position on
available visual cues. Doing it this way allows the actual landing as well.
Lastly, on selecting a field; this factor can be accomplished at any
time during a dual session locally or on a cross country with the
concentration on coupling the power off approaches practiced back at the
airport with the additional factors involved; flying the airplane and
the choice of the field.
These places chosen should be researched by the instructor for
suitability before they are used for this purpose.



--
Dudley Henriques

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Feb 26, 3:02 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
>
>> My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
>> teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
>> given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
>> farmer. The instructor even said so.)
>
> No, I would say about 5' rule. But i wouldn't do it where there were
> people, structures, or vehicles in the area (cows don't count).

But horses do. Expensive, high vet bills
and easily spooked.

On Feb 27, 12:02 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> My first instructor liked to have me practice emergency landings over rural
> Oregon. Although we observed basic airspace rules, we'd get down below
> treetop levels, short final, maybe 100' or less before go around. Once, I
> could see the startled expression on a farmer's face as he watched us. On a
> couple of occasions, I thought we were actually going to land. Birds took
> flight, etc. Subsequent instructors and examiners always called it "good"
> well above that so we never got that low.
>
> My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
> teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
> given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
> farmer. The instructor even said so.)
>
> -c
> CP-ASEL-IA, CFI student

I am fortunate enough to fly where there are designated low flying
zones. They are only used for a maximum of two aircraft conducting
dual training. The instructor decides how low you may fly depending on
your ability and the weather conditions. The local land owners all
agreed to it and although we make every effort to avoid buzzing their
stock most of the time they (the cows that is) are so used to low
flying planes they don't even bat an eyelid at you when you fly past.
As for how low have I gone, I'd say about 4-5 feet before the
instructor told me to go around. By that time I was ready to land
alright!

Well....

On my pre- check ride for my PPL, the instructor DID clear a field
that he knew was suitable (an abandoned runway/airstrip,) and when he
saw that I had chosen the right field, he said... NOTHING!!.

.......so I landed the sucker!

He pulled the power at 1000 agl so the choices were limited....


Then he said.. "NOW we get to check your soft field takeoff
procedure..."


Dave



On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:02:17 -0800, "gatt" >
wrote:

>
>My first instructor liked to have me practice emergency landings over rural
>Oregon. Although we observed basic airspace rules, we'd get down below
>treetop levels, short final, maybe 100' or less before go around. Once, I
>could see the startled expression on a farmer's face as he watched us. On a
>couple of occasions, I thought we were actually going to land. Birds took
>flight, etc. Subsequent instructors and examiners always called it "good"
>well above that so we never got that low.
>
>My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
>teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
>given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
>farmer. The instructor even said so.)
>
>
>-c
>CP-ASEL-IA, CFI student
>
>

gatt wrote:
> around. Once, I could see the startled expression on a farmer's face
> as he watched us.


I used to do that occassionally when by myself. After practicing some
manueuvers, or just messing around (used to love dropping down to a few
hundred feet and following the Missouri River west of Kansas City :),
knowing I hadn't really paid a lot of attention to surrounding terrian, I'd
back off the trottle and go for the best landing site. Once I had a really
good approach to a hay field and around 50' noticed the farmer was in the
field on his tractor, and had actually stopped to watch. I waved with a
thumbs up, he waved back, and I gave it the gas. Man - memories, circa
1968........ :)

When I was getting checked on in a Cherokee, the instructor pulled the
power and said that I had lost the engine. After a few long seconds
of looking for an appropriate place he was kind enough to point out a
nice long flat piece of land we had overflown just before he pulled
the power. I made the turn and lined up for a "nice" engine out
landing. As we passed 200 feet I wondered when he was going to say
"go around." As I passed 100 feet, I decided I couldn't keep silent
any longer and asked if I should add power. His response was, "no,
you lost your engine." After doing a touch and go, (he finally
allowed me to "bring the engine back to life", I noticed on the climb
out that the "barn" at the end of the field was actually a hanger.
One of the best "engine out" experiences I have had.

John


>
> My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
> teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
> given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
> farmer. The instructor even said so.)
>
> -c
> CP-ASEL-IA, CFI student

Emergency landings eh
It's obvious that the glider pilots are away flying.

In rec.aviation.student george > wrote:
> Emergency landings eh
> It's obvious that the glider pilots are away flying.

Alas I'm not, but I've been keeping quiet. I know that there's a
significant difference between landing a 20:1, 30:1, or 40:1 glider with
no engine and landing a 7:1 winged brick whose engine has suddenly decided
to stop after a long period of appearing to work fine. Landing a glider
doesn't worry me at all but I would not be happy taking the controls of a
Cessna after the fan stopped cooling the pilot. For one thing, no
spoilers for glideslope control!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:55:12 -0600, ManhattanMan wrote:

> Man - memories, circa 1968........ :)

Yeah... back when you were forty...

<G>


--
Dallas

In article >,
Michael Ash > wrote:

> In rec.aviation.student george > wrote:
> > Emergency landings eh
> > It's obvious that the glider pilots are away flying.
>
> Alas I'm not, but I've been keeping quiet. I know that there's a
> significant difference between landing a 20:1, 30:1, or 40:1 glider with
> no engine and landing a 7:1 winged brick whose engine has suddenly decided
> to stop after a long period of appearing to work fine. Landing a glider
> doesn't worry me at all but I would not be happy taking the controls of a
> Cessna after the fan stopped cooling the pilot. For one thing, no
> spoilers for glideslope control!

That's what slips are for :-)

rg

On Feb 27, 5:57 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student george > wrote:
>
> > Emergency landings eh
> > It's obvious that the glider pilots are away flying.
>
> Alas I'm not, but I've been keeping quiet. I know that there's a
> significant difference between landing a 20:1, 30:1, or 40:1 glider with
> no engine and landing a 7:1 winged brick whose engine has suddenly decided
> to stop after a long period of appearing to work fine. Landing a glider
> doesn't worry me at all but I would not be happy taking the controls of a
> Cessna after the fan stopped cooling the pilot. For one thing, no
> spoilers for glideslope control!
>

Well you might look at the Shuttle returning from space as a rather
large glider

In rec.aviation.student Ron Garret > wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.student george > wrote:
>> > Emergency landings eh
>> > It's obvious that the glider pilots are away flying.
>>
>> Alas I'm not, but I've been keeping quiet. I know that there's a
>> significant difference between landing a 20:1, 30:1, or 40:1 glider with
>> no engine and landing a 7:1 winged brick whose engine has suddenly decided
>> to stop after a long period of appearing to work fine. Landing a glider
>> doesn't worry me at all but I would not be happy taking the controls of a
>> Cessna after the fan stopped cooling the pilot. For one thing, no
>> spoilers for glideslope control!
>
> That's what slips are for :-)

True enough, but using only slips is a royal pain, particularly in
higher-performing gliders. A mid-range glider with a 35:1 glideslope may
have a 5:1 glideslope with full spoilers, but a slip won't do nearly that
much good. It reduces the size of your glideslope "basket" and requires a
lot more precision. Combine that with not doing surprise power-off
landings all the time and the whole business seems chancier than I'd like.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

In rec.aviation.student george > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:57 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student george > wrote:
>>
>> > Emergency landings eh
>> > It's obvious that the glider pilots are away flying.
>>
>> Alas I'm not, but I've been keeping quiet. I know that there's a
>> significant difference between landing a 20:1, 30:1, or 40:1 glider with
>> no engine and landing a 7:1 winged brick whose engine has suddenly decided
>> to stop after a long period of appearing to work fine. Landing a glider
>> doesn't worry me at all but I would not be happy taking the controls of a
>> Cessna after the fan stopped cooling the pilot. For one thing, no
>> spoilers for glideslope control!
>
> Well you might look at the Shuttle returning from space as a rather
> large glider

Certainly, and I wouldn't want to land that one either! Ridiculously low
glide ratio, low forgiveness for poor positioning, and far too much
reliance on computer control make me leery.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>Considering this, there should NEVER be a need to pull the mixture on a
>student. Doing this can easily turn a practice session into an actual
>forced landing.

I agree about stopping the prop. I have done it before, but only to
satisfy my curiosity about performance differences between stopped and
windmilling. I did it over a deserted airport with a long runway (actually 3
long runways).

I am curious about pulling the mixture, though. The only difference
between pulling the throttle and pulling the mixture is that one cuts off air
to the engine and the other cuts off fuel. Since pulling the mixture cuts
off the fuel, it keeps the engine and plugs from loading up as much. In
practice (at least in Cherokees and 172s), I've found that the prop is not
going to stop when the mixture is pulled, unless the plane gets within a few
knots of stall speed.

I'm not a CFI, but I do practice engine out landings on a regular basis
(religiously, since my real engine out). I prefer pulling the mixture to
idle cutoff as a means of simulating the power loss, just because it keeps
the plugs cleaner. Power recovery is as simple as pushing the mixture back
in and verifying that the throttle is full forward. Is there something I'm
not thinking of?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200802/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Considering this, there should NEVER be a need to pull the mixture on a
>> student. Doing this can easily turn a practice session into an actual
>> forced landing.
>
> I agree about stopping the prop. I have done it before, but only to
> satisfy my curiosity about performance differences between stopped and
> windmilling. I did it over a deserted airport with a long runway (actually 3
> long runways).
>
> I am curious about pulling the mixture, though. The only difference
> between pulling the throttle and pulling the mixture is that one cuts off air
> to the engine and the other cuts off fuel. Since pulling the mixture cuts
> off the fuel, it keeps the engine and plugs from loading up as much. In
> practice (at least in Cherokees and 172s), I've found that the prop is not
> going to stop when the mixture is pulled, unless the plane gets within a few
> knots of stall speed.
>
> I'm not a CFI, but I do practice engine out landings on a regular basis
> (religiously, since my real engine out). I prefer pulling the mixture to
> idle cutoff as a means of simulating the power loss, just because it keeps
> the plugs cleaner. Power recovery is as simple as pushing the mixture back
> in and verifying that the throttle is full forward. Is there something I'm
> not thinking of?
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

Pulling to ICO is simply not necessary to teach forced landings. Doing
it is just asking for possible trouble. Bottom line is that the pros
just don't outweigh the potential cons.
It's just not a practice I have ever recommended.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques