Engine Out Landing. Big Deal?

[soartech]

I almost snickered a bit after watching this "real life" story about
how a pilot had to land his plane after loosing engine power at 500
feet. After 35 years of flying gliders this looks normal to me. Maybe
power planes are really hard to fly. This guy has 4700 hours and he
overshot his turn onto the runway and lands way left of the center
line.
I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
an engine.
http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/index.cfm

[vaughn[_3_]]

"soartech" > wrote in message
...
> I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> an engine.

I have a lot more time in gliders than in airplanes, but I wouldn't brag too
much in advance about my likelihood of making a safe power-off emergency landing
in an airplane. Flying a 7 to 1 airplane with little or no glide path control
takes a somewhat different skill set than doing the same with a 30 to 1 glider
with good spoilers.and (likely) a lower approach speed.

Vaughn

[Tony[_5_]]

On Mar 25, 12:15*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "soartech" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> > to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> > an engine.
>
> I have a lot more time in gliders than in airplanes, but I wouldn't brag too
> much in advance about my likelihood of making a safe power-off emergency landing
> in an airplane. *Flying a 7 to 1 airplane with little or no glide path control
> takes a somewhat different skill set than doing the same with a 30 to 1 glider
> with good spoilers.and (likely) a lower approach speed.
>
> Vaughn

this.

all my power flying friends seem to think i don't have any reason to
sweat an engine failure in an airplane now since i have glider
experience. not so. having an engine failure at 500 ft in an
airplane and ending up with a successful landing is something to be
proud of, I think. You have, at best, 60 seconds to make all the
right decisions from that altitude. You'll probably spend at least
1/3 of that time realizing what went wrong and then recovering from
the mistakes you made during that realization period. then you have
(at best) 40 seconds to determine a course of action and execute.
I'll take a real glider any day.

[Tim Taylor]

On Mar 25, 10:51*am, soartech > wrote:
> I almost snickered a bit after watching this "real life" story about
> how a pilot had to land his plane after loosing engine power at 500
> feet. After 35 years of flying gliders this looks normal to me. Maybe
> power planes are really hard to fly. This guy has 4700 hours and he
> overshot his turn onto the runway and lands way left of the center
> line.
> I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> an engine.http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/index.cfm

Sad thing is the AOPA site never mention the obvious error that if he
had turned left rather than right he could have used the cross runway
in a smooth 270 degree turn rather than the 360 degree turn required
to go back to the same runway.

[kirk.stant]

On Mar 25, 12:26*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:15*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
>
> > "soartech" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> > > to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> > > an engine.
>
> > I have a lot more time in gliders than in airplanes, but I wouldn't brag too
> > much in advance about my likelihood of making a safe power-off emergency landing
> > in an airplane. *Flying a 7 to 1 airplane with little or no glide path control
> > takes a somewhat different skill set than doing the same with a 30 to 1 glider
> > with good spoilers.and (likely) a lower approach speed.
>
> > Vaughn
>
> this.
>
> all my power flying friends seem to think i don't have any reason to
> sweat an engine failure in an airplane now since i have glider
> experience. *not so. *having an engine failure at 500 ft in an
> airplane and ending up with a successful landing is something to be
> proud of, I think. *You have, at best, 60 seconds to make all the
> right decisions from that altitude. *You'll probably spend at least
> 1/3 of that time realizing what went wrong and then recovering from
> the mistakes you made during that realization period. *then you have
> (at best) 40 seconds to determine a course of action and execute.
> I'll take a real glider any day.

Agreed. A normal approach in a glider is very similar to a power on
approach in a plane - as long as you don't need to go around.

If you want to simulate a power off approach, take a glider with real
effective spoilers (the old L13 Blanik will do nicely, not sure if the
L23's spoilers are as good), get off tow over the field, pull on full
spoilers, then fly the pattern at 60 knots or so (without closing the
spoilers). Even more dramatic with a glider like a 1-34 or 2-32 with
terminal velocity dive brakes.

Actually, its a pretty good training maneuver, and fun - but remember,
in a glider you can still close the spoilers if you pooch it; but in a
power plane with an engine failure, you have to get it right the first
time.

This difference may be why power-only pilots think glider pilots are
either 1. Stupid or 2. Extremely Skilled!

Kirk

[Tim Taylor]

On Mar 25, 10:51*am, soartech > wrote:
> I almost snickered a bit after watching this "real life" story about
> how a pilot had to land his plane after loosing engine power at 500
> feet. After 35 years of flying gliders this looks normal to me. Maybe
> power planes are really hard to fly. This guy has 4700 hours and he
> overshot his turn onto the runway and lands way left of the center
> line.
> I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> an engine.http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/index.cfm

Too bad the AOPA site did not point out the obvious error that the
pilot could have made a 270 degree left turn onto the cross runway and
been much safer than the 360 degree turns required to go back to the
same runway.

[kd6veb]

On Mar 25, 10:26*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:15*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
>
> > "soartech" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> > > to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> > > an engine.
>
> > I have a lot more time in gliders than in airplanes, but I wouldn't brag too
> > much in advance about my likelihood of making a safe power-off emergency landing
> > in an airplane. *Flying a 7 to 1 airplane with little or no glide path control
> > takes a somewhat different skill set than doing the same with a 30 to 1 glider
> > with good spoilers.and (likely) a lower approach speed.
>
Hi Gang
Having landed out in a Lanair ES after a fire and engine out in a
tiny field on the western slope of the Sierras where trees dominated
the scenery and surviving I believe my gliding experience greatly
enhanced my survivability. With a glider at all times one has a
bailout site in mind and each landing must be correct. No going around
for a second chance. I sense that most power plane only pilots do not
put the emphasis that we glider pilots do of mentally planning a
landing. Too low push the throttle forward. Too high a go around.
Check out the NTSB accident reports on missed landings. I am certain
that for about 50% of the missed landings if an experienced glider
pilot had been PIC the outcomes would have been different. I really
think my own incident with the Lancair would have been very different
and tragic without my glider experience.
Dave


> ...
>
> > I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> > to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> > an engine.


> > Vaughn
>
> this.
>
> all my power flying friends seem to think i don't have any reason to
> sweat an engine failure in an airplane now since i have glider
> experience. *not so. *having an engine failure at 500 ft in an
> airplane and ending up with a successful landing is something to be
> proud of, I think. *You have, at best, 60 seconds to make all the
> right decisions from that altitude. *You'll probably spend at least
> 1/3 of that time realizing what went wrong and then recovering from
> the mistakes you made during that realization period. *then you have
> (at best) 40 seconds to determine a course of action and execute.
> I'll take a real glider any day.

[kd6veb]

Hi Gang
Having landed out in a Lanair ES after a fire and engine out in a
tiny field on the western slope of the Sierras where trees dominated
the scenery and surviving I believe my gliding experience greatly
enhanced my survivability. With a glider at all times one has a
bailout site in mind and each landing must be correct. No going around
for a second chance. I sense that most power plane only pilots do not
put the emphasis that we glider pilots do of planning a landing. Too
low push the throttle forward. Too high a go around. Check out the
NTSB accident reports on missed landings. I am certain that for about
50% of the missed landings if an experienced glider pilot had been PIC
the outcomes would have been different. I really think my own incident
with the Lancair would have been very different and tragic without my
glider experience.
Dave


> ...
>
> > I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> > to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> > an engine.

[Nick Kennedy]

At 16:51 25 March 2011, soartech wrote:
>I almost snickered a bit after watching this "real life" story about
>how a pilot had to land his plane after loosing engine power at 500
>feet. After 35 years of flying gliders this looks normal to me. Maybe
>power planes are really hard to fly. This guy has 4700 hours and he
>overshot his turn onto the runway and lands way left of the center
>line.
>I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
>to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
>an engine.
>http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/index.cfm
>
>As A Commercial Glider Pilot who happens to fly alot of Cessna single
engine stuff the above comment that Mr. Soartech was snickering at one of
our fellow airmans ,less than stellar performance, in a aircraft
Completely different than a glider , in what is a hair raising, scary,
potentially fatal situation,is sad to me.
A 500' engine out is a serious thing. In a glider at 500' you can glide
a couple of miles, easy. At something like a 120 ft/ min sink rate. I would
like to load Mr. Soartech in a C172 full of fuel, and at max climb
attitude,full power, turn off the mags and see how he does. First of all,
if you ball it, up the odds are you are going to turn into a fireball.
Second, by the time you react, with a surprising very large attitude nose
down shove required on the yoke, which you NEVER do in normal flight ops,
the airspeed is going to be low and the ground coming up very fast, oh yea
and you might have some people in there with you, like your kids. Its not
quite like your at 500' at 65 knots in your LS 4 let me tell you. So
lets not be to harsh on our fellow aviators, after all the history books
are full of World Class level Multi Nationals winners/instructors in
gliders that have killed themselves and we continue to do so at a very
steady and consistent pace.
We land short, we forget to lower the gear, we forget to connect the
controls, we forget to turn on the 02, were on the wrong frequency, We
hit our friends in thermals we land in the trees! the list goes on.
Lets be careful out there this season and watch out for each other.

[toad]

Yes, a 500 ft engine out on takeoff in a light plane is more like a
125 ft rope break. Now do a 180 turn around to land.

Try to simulate this emergency some time if you have power license or
a friend to fly with. Just be prepared to see how fast the ground
comes up.

[Scott[_7_]]

On 3-25-2011 16:51, soartech wrote:
> I almost snickered a bit after watching this "real life" story about
> how a pilot had to land his plane after loosing engine power at 500
> feet. After 35 years of flying gliders this looks normal to me. Maybe
> power planes are really hard to fly. This guy has 4700 hours and he
> overshot his turn onto the runway and lands way left of the center
> line.
> I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> an engine.
> http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/index.cfm
>

It IS an event in something like my Corben with its 1000-1500 FPM
descent rate at idle (probably MORE without power)...that would be about
20-30 seconds without any turns at all...

Scott

[n7ly]

On Mar 25, 11:26*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:15*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
>
> > "soartech" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > I think the solution is that every new power pilot should be required
> > > to have 20 flights in gliders before even stepping into a plane with
> > > an engine.
>
> > I have a lot more time in gliders than in airplanes, but I wouldn't brag too
> > much in advance about my likelihood of making a safe power-off emergency landing
> > in an airplane. *Flying a 7 to 1 airplane with little or no glide path control
> > takes a somewhat different skill set than doing the same with a 30 to 1 glider
> > with good spoilers.and (likely) a lower approach speed.
>
> > Vaughn
>
> this.
>
> all my power flying friends seem to think i don't have any reason to
> sweat an engine failure in an airplane now since i have glider
> experience. *not so. *having an engine failure at 500 ft in an
> airplane and ending up with a successful landing is something to be
> proud of, I think. *You have, at best, 60 seconds to make all the
> right decisions from that altitude. *You'll probably spend at least
> 1/3 of that time realizing what went wrong and then recovering from
> the mistakes you made during that realization period. *then you have
> (at best) 40 seconds to determine a course of action and execute.
> I'll take a real glider any day.

Been there, done that. Tony has it about right for time and restart
sequence. In my case the commonly taught remedy of full rich was not
only wrong, but absolutely opposite of what could have been the way to
get it going again. After the initial reduction in throttle the engine
flooded and I didn't know it until I needed a bit. The carb float had
sunk and full rich, change tanks, fiddle with mags, were worthless.
Landed short, no damage, got out, gas running out the size of my
finger. Pulled plane up on road, towed it back to the airport via car
with me in plane. An AD came out not long thereafter, saying to
replace those nasty sinking metal floats with composite floats. Some
years later another AD note, to replace those nasty composite floats
with metal floats because the floats sink. Had more than a couple of
other engine "anomalies" during quite a few years. The common
denominator is that NONE played by the usual fixit procedures.

[Walt Connelly]

Yes, a 500 ft engine out on takeoff in a light plane is more like a
125 ft rope break. Now do a 180 turn around to land.

Try to simulate this emergency some time if you have power license or
a friend to fly with. Just be prepared to see how fast the ground
comes up.

Excellent point. If might be that the glider pilot's instinctive 200 foot, 180 degree return to the runway on a rope brake might be frequently fatal under powered aircraft operations. I flew power (a Decathlon) for the first time in years this past week and actually said to myself, "there's 200 feet," on departure. There was substantial runway still beneath me and If I needed to I could have landed there or on the crosswind. If I had been at my home glider port I would have had no chance to turn 180 successfully but it might be that my ingrained glider training might have cause me to do so resulting in my demise. While I have no doubt that my glider training has made me a better pilot, the two different aircraft require different plans of action under similar situations. Glad this guy made it and glad we have all had another chance to learn a valuable lesson.

Walt

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 25, 1:48*pm, toad > wrote:
> Yes, a 500 ft engine out on takeoff in a light plane is more like a
> 125 ft rope break. *Now do a 180 turn around to land.
>
> Try to simulate this emergency some time if you have power license or
> a friend to fly with. *Just be prepared to see how fast the ground
> comes up.

I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for engine
failure had the priorities wrong. Power pilots are taught to set best
glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going away
from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.

One year, when I was active as an airplane CFI, I trained 3 different
pilots in engine out turn back. All were able to turn back, and be in
position to land, when power loss was simulated 400ft above the runway
at Vy. The aircraft used were a PA28-180 and a Grumman AA5A. The
better pilots did it so well they had loads of altitude to burn after
getting lined up to land.

With the right technique 400agl power loss in these aircraft was
similar to 200ft rope break in a glider.

The right technique of course was to do just what we teach in
gliders. Immediate 45 deg banked turn, into the wind if any. Speed
in the turn not best glide speed but the minimum speed that gives a
safe stall margin. In most airplanes that is much slower than best
glide speed.

The initial training was performed about 1500 agl using a road as a
simulated runway. Only when the technique was mastered was an actual
low altitude turn back performed.

Andy

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 3/26/2011 10:41 AM, Andy wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:48 pm, > wrote:
>> Yes, a 500 ft engine out on takeoff in a light plane is more like a
>> 125 ft rope break. Now do a 180 turn around to land.
>>
>> Try to simulate this emergency some time if you have power license or
>> a friend to fly with. Just be prepared to see how fast the ground
>> comes up.
>
> I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for engine
> failure had the priorities wrong. Power pilots are taught to set best
> glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going away
> from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.
>
> One year, when I was active as an airplane CFI, I trained 3 different
> pilots in engine out turn back. All were able to turn back, and be in
> position to land, when power loss was simulated 400ft above the runway
> at Vy. The aircraft used were a PA28-180 and a Grumman AA5A. The
> better pilots did it so well they had loads of altitude to burn after
> getting lined up to land.
>
> With the right technique 400agl power loss in these aircraft was
> similar to 200ft rope break in a glider.
>
> The right technique of course was to do just what we teach in
> gliders. Immediate 45 deg banked turn, into the wind if any. Speed
> in the turn not best glide speed but the minimum speed that gives a
> safe stall margin. In most airplanes that is much slower than best
> glide speed.
>
> The initial training was performed about 1500 agl using a road as a
> simulated runway. Only when the technique was mastered was an actual
> low altitude turn back performed.
>
> Andy
>
Andy's hands-on experience supports a (several, actually) thought(s) the
skeptical engineer in me has mulled ever since gaining sufficient experience
and knowledge to be able to.

Teaching (of anything) is an inexact process, while teaching of a demonstrable
physical skill (e.g. piloting) requires - for all practical purposes -
creation of defined methodologies, the goal generally being infusing the
student with sufficient knowledge and abilities to continue 'self-training'
throughout the rest of their applied learning activities. So far so good...

However, when it comes to teaching of certain 'immediately' life-threatening
emergency aviation-related procedures (rope breaks, engine loss, etc.), where
one 'sets the bar' for 'acceptably safe' is arguably statistically important
to future accident rates. My growing suspicion has been the bar for light,
single-piston-engined GA may well be set 'too high (above the ground, I mean)'
when it comes to defining safe turn-around altitude(s) above ground. Sort of
the equivalent of adults setting/permitting expectations of kids in school
'too low.' Or, maybe focusing on the wrong thing (a magic height, say) rather
than some more fundamentally important metric (e.g. what it takes as a pilot
to effect a safe, minimal-altitude-loss 'teardrop reversal').

While fully recognizing the aero-perfomance differences between (say) any
Bonanza and a Taylorcraft BC-12, how much sense does it make to set the
'safe-180-height' for both the same? More to the point - since review of NTSB
accident data yields a drearily consistent litany of unfortunately-terminated
engine-loss incidents - maybe it would make more training sense to 'set the
bar' as an airframe-dependent, outcome-based, training exercise designed more
to inculcate in student-pilots (not to mention instructors, and eventually to
the entire pilot base) the concept of obtaining maximum-performance,
minimum-altitude-loss turnarounds, as distinct from some 'magical universal
turnaround height'. That latter may well be a poor choice of teaching metric
simply because the training often (in my observation) tends to morph into
'rote memorization of some universal safety height', when almost certainly
universality of numbers is *way* too crude a metric.

In any event, my (non-CFIG-based) personal bias has long been to try to
highlight fundamental underlying concepts to any 'teachable moment', whether
aviation-related or not. Works for me!

Meanwhile, mental review of one's own ideas and applicable skill-sets is
probably never a waste of time. What Tom Knauff too-gently euphemizes as 'The
Silly Season' is well underway in the U.S. as spring advances here, and the
honest among sailplane pilots will place the underlying responsibility for the
vast majority of sailplane accidents and incidents squarely where it belongs,
on Joe PIC.

Let's have fun, but wisely, thoughtfully and (presumably, more) safely!

Bob - none of my gliders ever bent themselves - W.

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Andy" > wrote in message
... wrote:
..

>I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for engine
>failure had the priorities wrong. Power pilots are taught to set best
>glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going away
>from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.

.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius increases with
the square of airspeed! An amazing number of power pilots (and even some glider
pilots) don't know that. Both the bank angle and the airspeed of that turn are
vitally important.

Vaughn

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 26, 12:13*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "Andy" > wrote in ... wrote:
>
> .
>
> >I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for engine
> >failure had the priorities wrong. *Power pilots are taught to set best
> >glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going away
> >from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.
>
> *.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius increases with
> the square of airspeed! *An amazing number of power pilots (and even some glider
> pilots) don't know that. *Both the bank angle and the airspeed of that turn are
> vitally important.
>
> Vaughn

That's why I said speed only that required for a safe margin above
stall.

[n7ly]

On Mar 26, 1:13*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "Andy" > wrote in ... wrote:
>
> .
>
> >I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for engine
> >failure had the priorities wrong. *Power pilots are taught to set best
> >glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going away
> >from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.
>
> *.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius increases with
> the square of airspeed! *An amazing number of power pilots (and even some glider
> pilots) don't know that. *Both the bank angle and the airspeed of that turn are
> vitally important.
>
> Vaughn

Nobody has seen fit to bring in runway heading versus runway track
while on initial tow in a significant crosswind. In our neck of the
woods this happens. Is a significant factor in least time/space to get
back to a downwind landing.

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Oh, I thought someone mentioned it in passing. Always turn into wind.

At 21:42 26 March 2011, n7ly wrote:
>On Mar 26, 1:13=A0pm, "vaughn" wrote:
>> "Andy" wrote in messagenews:45b8c464-c350-4983-be8=
... wrote:
>>
>> .
>>
>> >I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for
engine
>> >failure had the priorities wrong. =A0Power pilots are taught to set
>best
>> >glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going
away
>> >from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.
>>
>> =A0.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius
>increa=
>ses with
>> the square of airspeed! =A0An amazing number of power pilots (and even
>so=
>me glider
>> pilots) don't know that. =A0Both the bank angle and the airspeed of
that
>=
>turn are
>> vitally important.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
>Nobody has seen fit to bring in runway heading versus runway track
>while on initial tow in a significant crosswind. In our neck of the
>woods this happens. Is a significant factor in least time/space to get
>back to a downwind landing.
>

[n7ly]

On Mar 26, 8:30*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> Oh, I thought someone mentioned it in passing. *Always turn into wind.
>
> At 21:42 26 March 2011, n7ly wrote:
>
> >On Mar 26, 1:13=A0pm, "vaughn" *wrote:
> >> "Andy" *wrote in messagenews:45b8c464-c350-4983-be8=
> ... wrote:
>
> >> .
>
> >> >I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for
> engine
> >> >failure had the priorities wrong. =A0Power pilots are taught to set
> >best
> >> >glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going
> away
> >> >from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.
>
> >> =A0.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius
> >increa=
> >ses with
> >> the square of airspeed! =A0An amazing number of power pilots (and even
> >so=
> >me glider
> >> pilots) don't know that. =A0Both the bank angle and the airspeed of
> that
> >=
> >turn are
> >> vitally important.
>
> >> Vaughn
>
> >Nobody has seen fit to bring in runway heading versus runway track
> >while on initial tow in a significant crosswind. In our neck of the
> >woods this happens. Is a significant factor in least time/space to get
> >back to a downwind landing.

Let me restate this a bit for those who don't often have 15 knot
crosswind components.

Should the towplane maintain runway heading after liftoff and after
establishing a normal climb, allowing the tow plane to drift while
maintaining runway heading?
Or should the towplane maintain runway track after liftoff and after
establishing a normal climb, keeping the tow plane on what would be
runway centerline?

It makes a significant difference in how many degrees of turn
necessary as you turn into the wind and get lined up for a downwind
landing.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/27/2011 6:47 AM, n7ly wrote:

>>> Nobody has seen fit to bring in runway heading versus runway track
>>> while on initial tow in a significant crosswind. In our neck of the
>>> woods this happens. Is a significant factor in least time/space to get
>>> back to a downwind landing.
>
> Let me restate this a bit for those who don't often have 15 knot
> crosswind components.
>
> Should the towplane maintain runway heading after liftoff and after
> establishing a normal climb, allowing the tow plane to drift while
> maintaining runway heading?
> Or should the towplane maintain runway track after liftoff and after
> establishing a normal climb, keeping the tow plane on what would be
> runway centerline?
>
> It makes a significant difference in how many degrees of turn
> necessary as you turn into the wind and get lined up for a downwind
> landing.

It's easy for me in my motorglider to control my track during the
launch. I typically track about 20-30 degrees downwind of the runway for
these reasons:

* I can easily see the runway, my glide angle to the aim point, and how
much I have left; otherwise, the nose of the glider obscures all that.
* By the time I can no longer land ahead on the runway, I can make an
downwind landing with a ~220 degree turn that begin with an
into-the-wind, towards the runway turn.
* At my airport, the cross runway is can be an even better choice, as I
can make a continuous 270 degree turn and land into the wind.

Why not take off from that runway to begin with? The landing options
beyond it are poor, so I prefer the other runway as long as the cross
wind is 10 knots or less.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[toad]

On Mar 27, 9:47*am, n7ly > wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:30*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh, I thought someone mentioned it in passing. *Always turn into wind..
>
> > At 21:42 26 March 2011, n7ly wrote:
>
> > >On Mar 26, 1:13=A0pm, "vaughn" *wrote:
> > >> "Andy" *wrote in messagenews:45b8c464-c350-4983-be8=
> > ... wrote:
>
> > >> .
>
> > >> >I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for
> > engine
> > >> >failure had the priorities wrong. =A0Power pilots are taught to set
> > >best
> > >> >glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going
> > away
> > >> >from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.
>
> > >> =A0.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius
> > >increa=
> > >ses with
> > >> the square of airspeed! =A0An amazing number of power pilots (and even
> > >so=
> > >me glider
> > >> pilots) don't know that. =A0Both the bank angle and the airspeed of
> > that
> > >=
> > >turn are
> > >> vitally important.
>
> > >> Vaughn
>
> > >Nobody has seen fit to bring in runway heading versus runway track
> > >while on initial tow in a significant crosswind. In our neck of the
> > >woods this happens. Is a significant factor in least time/space to get
> > >back to a downwind landing.
>
> Let me restate this a bit for those who don't often have 15 knot
> crosswind components.
>
> Should the towplane maintain runway heading after liftoff and after
> establishing a normal climb, allowing the tow plane to drift while
> maintaining runway heading?
> Or should the towplane maintain runway track after liftoff and after
> establishing a normal climb, keeping the tow plane on what would be
> runway centerline?
>
> It makes a significant difference in how many degrees of turn
> necessary as you turn into the wind and get lined up for a downwind
> landing.

As a towpilot, I allow myself to drift downwind if possible ( no
terrain to avoid or noise sensitive areas ) to make it easier for a
glider to turn into the wind in case of a rope break.

Todd
3S

[BruceGreeff]

Our standard operating procedure is for the tug to track downwind of the
runway on all launches once through 50 or so feet. Self launchers tend
to do the same.

Why? For the reasons other people have stated - i.e. Because it gives
the glider the maximum number of alternatives.

It increases the time during which you can land ahead, both because of
the extra distance back to the runway, and because of the headwind
component.
It reduces the chance of a situation developing where you are too low to
turn 180 degrees, but can't land ahead safely.
It ensures that you are turning into wind for landing so have less
chance of overshooting the runway.
It ensures that the pilot has the runway in sight during the manoeuvre.
As Eric said, it increases the time you can see the runway because the
downward visibility is better to the side of the nose, so situational
awareness is better.

Naturally it is possible to overdo that and end up too low to reach the
runway. For example if the tuggie forgets that it is a lowly club class
hack on the end of the string, not an uber wingspan supership... So - no
process is perfect when people are making decisions, but this process is
generally safer.

Again, we do this because we don't end up traversing over hangars, trees
etc. Other airfields may differ.


On 2011/03/27 04:22 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 3/27/2011 6:47 AM, n7ly wrote:
>
>>>> Nobody has seen fit to bring in runway heading versus runway track
>>>> while on initial tow in a significant crosswind. In our neck of the
>>>> woods this happens. Is a significant factor in least time/space to get
>>>> back to a downwind landing.
>>
>> Let me restate this a bit for those who don't often have 15 knot
>> crosswind components.
>>
>> Should the towplane maintain runway heading after liftoff and after
>> establishing a normal climb, allowing the tow plane to drift while
>> maintaining runway heading?
>> Or should the towplane maintain runway track after liftoff and after
>> establishing a normal climb, keeping the tow plane on what would be
>> runway centerline?
>>
>> It makes a significant difference in how many degrees of turn
>> necessary as you turn into the wind and get lined up for a downwind
>> landing.
>
> It's easy for me in my motorglider to control my track during the
> launch. I typically track about 20-30 degrees downwind of the runway for
> these reasons:
>
> * I can easily see the runway, my glide angle to the aim point, and how
> much I have left; otherwise, the nose of the glider obscures all that.
> * By the time I can no longer land ahead on the runway, I can make an
> downwind landing with a ~220 degree turn that begin with an
> into-the-wind, towards the runway turn.
> * At my airport, the cross runway is can be an even better choice, as I
> can make a continuous 270 degree turn and land into the wind.
>
> Why not take off from that runway to begin with? The landing options
> beyond it are poor, so I prefer the other runway as long as the cross
> wind is 10 knots or less.
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[BruceGreeff]

PS - from the video it looks like he misjudged the approach to me.
The first field was bigger and I think he was aiming for it but overshot.
It certainly looks like he collected the wall with his main gear.

Doubt I would do any better in a YAK, but I did wonder why he did not
use sideslip to increase the descent angle. I expect it is that power
pilots, especially those used to the output of a M14P get totally
focussed on stretching the glide when the engine goes out. The thought
process that comes naturally to a glider pilot in terms of managing
energy to get to a landing point is perhaps not intuitive to someone
used to using only one control to achieve this?

So it looks like he arrived at the field with more energy than he expected.

<SNIP>

[Mike[_28_]]

Barry Shiff wrote a good article on the Impossible Turn that appears
in AOPA Pilot this month. Its worth the read. He touches on many of
the issues mentioned in the above posts.