Impossible to ditch in a field (almost)

[mindenpilot]

I live out West, where there are hundreds of miles of empty space in every
direction. When flight planning, I often say, "I can ditch in that dry lake
bed, or that field, or if I have to, on that road."

In a couple of weeks, I'm travelling to North Carolina to visit my brother
for the holidays. I'm planning on renting a plane at his local airport and
taking him for a flight. To prepare, I got the Charlotte sectional.

When I opened it up, I couldn't believe it! The thing is literally dotted
with airports. They're everywhere!

Seems to me, I'd much rather be on the east coast when I have an engine
failure, instead of out here where you're lucky to find that dry lake bed
(instead of a mountain).

Anyone ever notice this before?

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[dave]

There are quite a few here in eastern PA and NJ. Some are almost next
to each other like Sky Manor and Alexandria. An engine out halfway
between would still require some altitude to make it to one or the other.

A tip I picked up from AOPA magazine is to flight plan my cross
countries to fly over or very close to airports along my route if
they're only a few minutes out of my way. Hopefully if there's a
problem I'll be able to make it to an airport.

Dave
68 7ECA

mindenpilot wrote:
> I live out West, where there are hundreds of miles of empty space in every
> direction. When flight planning, I often say, "I can ditch in that dry lake
> bed, or that field, or if I have to, on that road."
>
> In a couple of weeks, I'm travelling to North Carolina to visit my brother
> for the holidays. I'm planning on renting a plane at his local airport and
> taking him for a flight. To prepare, I got the Charlotte sectional.
>
> When I opened it up, I couldn't believe it! The thing is literally dotted
> with airports. They're everywhere!
>
> Seems to me, I'd much rather be on the east coast when I have an engine
> failure, instead of out here where you're lucky to find that dry lake bed
> (instead of a mountain).
>
> Anyone ever notice this before?
>
> Adam
> N7966L
> Beech Super III
>
>

[BTIZ]

everything is different on the right side.. (east), but I can show you
places where there is still a long way between landable airports... north
woods of Maine, NH and VT, but then in NH and VT the airports are closer
together.. and their idea of mountains is down around 4000-5000ft, the
highest point on the east is Mt Washington at 6288MSL. But you still don't
want to mess with it if you are not familiar with mountain effects winds and
weather.

Learned in NH, lived and have flown all over the country, central plains
mostly, and now Western mountains, Nevada/Arizona/Utah/California

BT

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
>I live out West, where there are hundreds of miles of empty space in every
>direction. When flight planning, I often say, "I can ditch in that dry
>lake bed, or that field, or if I have to, on that road."
>
> In a couple of weeks, I'm travelling to North Carolina to visit my brother
> for the holidays. I'm planning on renting a plane at his local airport
> and taking him for a flight. To prepare, I got the Charlotte sectional.
>
> When I opened it up, I couldn't believe it! The thing is literally dotted
> with airports. They're everywhere!
>
> Seems to me, I'd much rather be on the east coast when I have an engine
> failure, instead of out here where you're lucky to find that dry lake bed
> (instead of a mountain).
>
> Anyone ever notice this before?
>
> Adam
> N7966L
> Beech Super III
>

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:31:07 -0800, mindenpilot wrote:

> Seems to me, I'd much rather be on the east coast when I have an engine
> failure, instead of out here where you're lucky to find that dry lake bed
> (instead of a mountain).

Adam,

Sounds reasonable enough, HOWEVER, where you have 100's of miles of empty
space where a dry lake bed is available, and the east coast has lots of
airports, one has to be intimately familiar with the area you are flying in
congested areas.

Airports out my way in the deep south are not so easy to spot, and if one
has an engine failure, sometimes the airport may not be the best place to
land with considerations of wind, obstructions and so forth.

It also could get you in trouble to stretch out your best glide to a runway
when you have a suitable landing spot within a better range.

There was an incident out my way where someone was flying from Atlanta to
Monroe LA, and he was trying to make it to an airport but ran out of
altitude. He landed on a major state route with no injuries to himself,
passengers or drivers on the road. The road was between two airports (JAN
and MBO) and he made a correct decision to put it on the highway rather
then stretch out his glide over populated areas enroute to an airport.

Allen

[C Kingsbury]

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyone ever notice this before?
>

I fly out of BED, out in the Boston suburbs. While your odds of limping in
to an airport are definitely better (especially in IMC) there is still
plenty of inhospitable terrain called Densely Populated Areas. There are
plenty of places where your choice of impromptu landing strips will be a
swamp, a par-3 9-hole golf course, an interstate full of traffic and power
lines, and a busy mall parking lot. I don't know the difference between
landing on wheat or soybeans, but I can tell you that on a weekend you're a
lot better off looking for an office park than a mall.

On busy days at BED it's not unusual to find yourself on a 5-mile final at
1200-1800' to stay under Boston's class B. If your engine quits out there
and there's any kind of headwind all you've got is a couple of minutes to
decide whose backyard furniture looks the softest because there's nothing
but people underneath you.

-cwk.

[WRE]

Actually, the highest point in the east is Mount Mitchell in western North
Carolina at an elevation of 6684 msl

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:yLIsd.176813$bk1.100951@fed1read05...
> everything is different on the right side.. (east), but I can show you
> places where there is still a long way between landable airports... north
> woods of Maine, NH and VT, but then in NH and VT the airports are closer
> together.. and their idea of mountains is down around 4000-5000ft, the
> highest point on the east is Mt Washington at 6288MSL. But you still don't
> want to mess with it if you are not familiar with mountain effects winds
> and weather.
>
> Learned in NH, lived and have flown all over the country, central plains
> mostly, and now Western mountains, Nevada/Arizona/Utah/California
>
> BT
>
> "mindenpilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I live out West, where there are hundreds of miles of empty space in every
>>direction. When flight planning, I often say, "I can ditch in that dry
>>lake bed, or that field, or if I have to, on that road."
>>
>> In a couple of weeks, I'm travelling to North Carolina to visit my
>> brother for the holidays. I'm planning on renting a plane at his local
>> airport and taking him for a flight. To prepare, I got the Charlotte
>> sectional.
>>
>> When I opened it up, I couldn't believe it! The thing is literally
>> dotted with airports. They're everywhere!
>>
>> Seems to me, I'd much rather be on the east coast when I have an engine
>> failure, instead of out here where you're lucky to find that dry lake bed
>> (instead of a mountain).
>>
>> Anyone ever notice this before?
>>
>> Adam
>> N7966L
>> Beech Super III
>>
>
>

[Brad Zeigler]

Isn't ditching, by definition, in the water?

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
> I live out West, where there are hundreds of miles of empty space in every
> direction. When flight planning, I often say, "I can ditch in that dry
lake
> bed, or that field, or if I have to, on that road."
>
> In a couple of weeks, I'm travelling to North Carolina to visit my brother
> for the holidays. I'm planning on renting a plane at his local airport
and
> taking him for a flight. To prepare, I got the Charlotte sectional.
>
> When I opened it up, I couldn't believe it! The thing is literally dotted
> with airports. They're everywhere!
>
> Seems to me, I'd much rather be on the east coast when I have an engine
> failure, instead of out here where you're lucky to find that dry lake bed
> (instead of a mountain).
>
> Anyone ever notice this before?
>
> Adam
> N7966L
> Beech Super III
>
>

[BTIZ]

really... that's going to be news to everyone in New England.. LOL

BT

"WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in message
...
> Actually, the highest point in the east is Mount Mitchell in western North
> Carolina at an elevation of 6684 msl
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:yLIsd.176813$bk1.100951@fed1read05...
>> together.. and their idea of mountains is down around 4000-5000ft, the
>> highest point on the east is Mt Washington at 6288MSL. But you still
>> don't want to mess with it if you are not familiar with mountain effects
>> winds and weather.
>>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> I live out West, where there are hundreds of miles of empty space in every
> direction. When flight planning, I often say, "I can ditch in that dry
> lake bed, or that field, or if I have to, on that road."
>

Why do you say that? Ditching requires water. You can ditch in a lake, but
not in a dry lake bed.

[Rod Madsen]

What airport will you be using?

Rod
KCLT

[Maule Driver]

Welcome to the land of NASCAR. The fine condition of some of those
airports, if not their very existance is due in part to NASCAR and their
race teams. Concord Regional and Lexington being examples. Where are you
going?

I would submit that agriculture provides more landable areas in the east
than the open spaces of the west. A lot of that open space outside of the
dry lakes seems to be filled with cactus, creosote bushes and other hard
things.

Glider flying in the Minden NV area involves a lot of smooth looking terrain
(from 6 -10k up) that is completely unlandable. And the roads typically
wouldn't take 50ft glider wings (damn reflectors) though a Cessna might be
just fine.

In the east and midwest, agriculture makes most areas landable most of the
time. As long as they are growing pine trees.

Another difference may be in the typical altitudes flown, especially VFR.
The weather is closer to the ground in the East so altitudes may be lower
offering less glide distance.

Of course "survival landings" due to engine failure versus "landouts" in
gliders have different criteria for landability.

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
> I live out West, where there are hundreds of miles of empty space in every
> direction. When flight planning, I often say, "I can ditch in that dry
lake
> bed, or that field, or if I have to, on that road."
>
> In a couple of weeks, I'm travelling to North Carolina to visit my brother
> for the holidays. I'm planning on renting a plane at his local airport
and
> taking him for a flight. To prepare, I got the Charlotte sectional.
>
> When I opened it up, I couldn't believe it! The thing is literally dotted
> with airports. They're everywhere!
>
> Seems to me, I'd much rather be on the east coast when I have an engine
> failure, instead of out here where you're lucky to find that dry lake bed
> (instead of a mountain).
>
> Anyone ever notice this before?
>
> Adam
> N7966L
> Beech Super III
>
>

[Trent Moorehead]

> "WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, the highest point in the east is Mount Mitchell in western
North
> > Carolina at an elevation of 6684 msl

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:DuOsd.176865$bk1.148755@fed1read05...
> really... that's going to be news to everyone in New England.. LOL

It's true. In fact there's four other mountains in the same area (Black
Mountains) that are higher than Mt. Washington. I'm a native North
Carolinian, still reside here, and have been up on these mountains many
times. Like you said, they are still small compared to the Western
mountains, but they shouldn't be taken lightly. If you fly into them they
don't move any more than they do out west!

What makes Mt. Washington really unique is that it has the most extreme
weather conditions. I believe the highest recorded wind velocity was
experienced there: 231 mph! Also, unlike the North Carolina mountains,
where trees exist at the peak, Mt. Washington rises above the treeline. This
makes the ascent the top very dramatic and it just feels higher than it
really is.

I just visited Mt. Washington for the first time last year. Anyone who is
interested in weather (most pilots I hope!) should make it a point to check
it out if you are ever in the area. There is a substantial charge to drive
up, but I found it well worth it. You can also take the cog railway straight
up the side too.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:50:12 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>everything is different on the right side.. (east), but I can show you
>places where there is still a long way between landable airports... north
>woods of Maine, NH and VT, but then in NH and VT the airports are closer
>together.. and their idea of mountains is down around 4000-5000ft, the
>highest point on the east is Mt Washington at 6288MSL. But you still don't
>want to mess with it if you are not familiar with mountain effects winds and
>weather.
>
>Learned in NH, lived and have flown all over the country, central plains
>mostly, and now Western mountains, Nevada/Arizona/Utah/California
>
>BT

I did not realise that Vermont and NH had lots of airfields, doesn't
seem like it when I'm flying around up here. Plus, the area
contiguous to the Connecticut river valley is extremely inhospitable:
it's very rugged, hilly and has collected a number of airplanes over
the years. Remember the Learjet that went down around this time of
the year six or seven years ago? Wasn't found for 3 years even though
it was finally discovered right along the flight path of the approach
to Lebanon Airport. The guys just let down too early in the clag
after executing a missed approach. Let down into heavily wooded
rising terrain. Weather was nasty that day.

Corky Scott

[C Kingsbury]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Actually, the highest point in the east is Mount Mitchell in western
> North
> > > Carolina at an elevation of 6684 msl
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:DuOsd.176865$bk1.148755@fed1read05...
> > really... that's going to be news to everyone in New England.. LOL
>
> What makes Mt. Washington really unique is that it has the most extreme
> weather conditions. I believe the highest recorded wind velocity was
> experienced there: 231 mph! Also, unlike the North Carolina mountains,
> where trees exist at the peak, Mt. Washington rises above the treeline.
This
> makes the ascent the top very dramatic and it just feels higher than it
> really is.

The most amazing mountains I've ever seen were on the Kenai peninsula in
Alaska. The peaks were only 6000-7000' but they were rising almost straight
up from sea level. The base of Mt. Washington is around 1500' so you have a
pretty impressive vertical rise, despite the relatively low peak. Around
here the treeline is also often pretty low. Mt. Monadnock is only 3200' but
it's pretty much just rock and moss by the time you reach the peak.

In terms of lethality, a hike to the peak in anything other than the middle
of the Summer has to be treated as a potential survival situation. Storms
can dump a foot or more of snow with little warning in early Fall, and by
Thanksgiving the temperatures at night can head into arctic territory, with
wind chills below -100F. If the mountain were less accessible I suspect it
would claim a lot more lives than it does. Every season at least a few
groups of hikers dial 911 on their cell phones.

-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > "WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > Actually, the highest point in the east is Mount Mitchell in western
>> North
>> > > Carolina at an elevation of 6684 msl
>>
>> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
>> news:DuOsd.176865$bk1.148755@fed1read05...
>> > really... that's going to be news to everyone in New England.. LOL
>>
>> What makes Mt. Washington really unique is that it has the most extreme
>> weather conditions. I believe the highest recorded wind velocity was
>> experienced there: 231 mph! Also, unlike the North Carolina mountains,
>> where trees exist at the peak, Mt. Washington rises above the treeline.
> This
>> makes the ascent the top very dramatic and it just feels higher than it
>> really is.
>
> The most amazing mountains I've ever seen were on the Kenai peninsula in
> Alaska. > -cwk.
>

You should see Mt Fairweather. It comes straight out of the sea to 15,300
and probably has much worse weather than Mt Washington but there isn't a
weather station on the summit to prove it. Also the NWS started using a new
wind chill chart a few years ago which only gives about half as much drop
due to wind as the previous chart. There are no more sub -100F on the new
chart which goes to -45F and 60mph.
http://www.weatherimages.org/data/windchill.html

Mike
MU-2

[Dan Truesdell]

Corky Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:50:12 -0800, "BTIZ" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>everything is different on the right side.. (east), but I can show you
>>places where there is still a long way between landable airports... north
>>woods of Maine, NH and VT, but then in NH and VT the airports are closer
>>together.. and their idea of mountains is down around 4000-5000ft, the
>>highest point on the east is Mt Washington at 6288MSL. But you still don't
>>want to mess with it if you are not familiar with mountain effects winds and
>>weather.
>>
>>Learned in NH, lived and have flown all over the country, central plains
>>mostly, and now Western mountains, Nevada/Arizona/Utah/California
>>
>>BT
>
>
> I did not realise that Vermont and NH had lots of airfields, doesn't
> seem like it when I'm flying around up here. Plus, the area
> contiguous to the Connecticut river valley is extremely inhospitable:
> it's very rugged, hilly and has collected a number of airplanes over
> the years.

Ah.. But there is always Runway 91 in case you need it.

Remember the Learjet that went down around this time of
> the year six or seven years ago? Wasn't found for 3 years even though
> it was finally discovered right along the flight path of the approach
> to Lebanon Airport. The guys just let down too early in the clag
> after executing a missed approach. Let down into heavily wooded
> rising terrain. Weather was nasty that day.
>
> Corky Scott

IFR mistakes notwithstanding...

--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brad Zeigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> Isn't ditching, by definition, in the water?
>

Yup.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Brad Zeigler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Isn't ditching, by definition, in the water?
> >
>
> Yup.

Unless... You put it into one of those trenches that are dug around the
outsides of fields in the flat, used to be, swampy areas, that are dry
except when it rains hard. What are those called? Oh yeah, ditches! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[C Kingsbury]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> You should see Mt Fairweather. It comes straight out of the sea to 15,300
> and probably has much worse weather than Mt Washington but there isn't a
> weather station on the summit to prove it. Also the NWS started using a
new
> wind chill chart a few years ago which only gives about half as much drop
> due to wind as the previous chart. There are no more sub -100F on the new
> chart which goes to -45F and 60mph.
> http://www.weatherimages.org/data/windchill.html
>

Headed back to Alaska next summer, might see if time allows for a visit.
Still, Mt. Washington's conditions are surprisingly brutal:

http://www.mountwashington.com/weather/index.html

In December and January there is a 1-in-3 chance of winds over 100MPH in any
24-hour period and the average high temperature in July is 53F. That's about
the same as the average *low* temperature in Fairbanks, AK at that time of
year. I'm sure if you went up into the Brooks Range or Siberia you could
find worse, though.

-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>
>> You should see Mt Fairweather. It comes straight out of the sea to
>> 15,300
>> and probably has much worse weather than Mt Washington but there isn't a
>> weather station on the summit to prove it. Also the NWS started using a
> new
>> wind chill chart a few years ago which only gives about half as much drop
>> due to wind as the previous chart. There are no more sub -100F on the
>> new
>> chart which goes to -45F and 60mph.
>> http://www.weatherimages.org/data/windchill.html
>>
>
> Headed back to Alaska next summer, might see if time allows for a visit.
> Still, Mt. Washington's conditions are surprisingly brutal:
>
> http://www.mountwashington.com/weather/index.html
>
> In December and January there is a 1-in-3 chance of winds over 100MPH in
> any
> 24-hour period and the average high temperature in July is 53F. That's
> about
> the same as the average *low* temperature in Fairbanks, AK at that time of
> year. I'm sure if you went up into the Brooks Range or Siberia you could
> find worse, though.
>
> -cwk.


Most of the big Alaskan moutains probably have worse weather than Mt
Washington but there is nobody there in the dark months to record
conditions. Same for the Himalaya. The wind usually isn't bad on Denali
until you reach 16,400' and doesn't get really bad until bove Denali pass at
18,200'. If you took all the people who have ever been at or above Denali
pass in Dec-Mar in the past 100yrs, the total time spent there is probably
less than two weeks and almost none of it in bad weather. The first winter
ascent got pinned down for one of those weeks at Denali pass in winds
estimated at over 150mph.with temps of -58F. They named the book -148F for
the chill factor. The weather on Fairweather and Logan is reportedly worse
than Denali but I have never been to either.

Similiarly many of the worst hurricane winds are also unrecorded because the
weather instrument were destroyed. In one hurricane (I forget the name) the
beach sand was making sparks when it impacted concrete! Think about that!

I have never heard of another small mountain that comes close to Mt.
Washington though.

Mike
MU-2

[BTIZ]

trust me corky.. you have LOTS of airfields... around here you may need to
go 50 miles or more to find another airport.. and then it will not have fuel
services..

BT

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:50:12 -0800, "BTIZ" >
> wrote:
>
>>everything is different on the right side.. (east), but I can show you
>>places where there is still a long way between landable airports... north
>>woods of Maine, NH and VT, but then in NH and VT the airports are closer
>>together.. and their idea of mountains is down around 4000-5000ft, the
>>highest point on the east is Mt Washington at 6288MSL. But you still don't
>>want to mess with it if you are not familiar with mountain effects winds
>>and
>>weather.
>>
>>Learned in NH, lived and have flown all over the country, central plains
>>mostly, and now Western mountains, Nevada/Arizona/Utah/California
>>
>>BT
>
> I did not realise that Vermont and NH had lots of airfields, doesn't
> seem like it when I'm flying around up here. Plus, the area
> contiguous to the Connecticut river valley is extremely inhospitable:
> it's very rugged, hilly and has collected a number of airplanes over
> the years. Remember the Learjet that went down around this time of
> the year six or seven years ago? Wasn't found for 3 years even though
> it was finally discovered right along the flight path of the approach
> to Lebanon Airport. The guys just let down too early in the clag
> after executing a missed approach. Let down into heavily wooded
> rising terrain. Weather was nasty that day.
>
> Corky Scott

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Brad Zeigler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Isn't ditching, by definition, in the water?
>> >
>>
>> Yup.
>
> Unless... You put it into one of those trenches that are dug around the
> outsides of fields in the flat, used to be, swampy areas, that are dry
> except when it rains hard. What are those called? Oh yeah, ditches! <g>
>

Nope.

[Morgans]

> >> >
> >> > Isn't ditching, by definition, in the water?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> > Unless... You put it into one of those trenches that are dug around the
> > outsides of fields in the flat, used to be, swampy areas, that are dry
> > except when it rains hard. What are those called? Oh yeah, ditches!
<g>
> >
>
> Nope.
>
Come on, get a sense of humor!
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>
> Come on, get a sense of humor!
>

I have a wonderful sense of humor.

[Trent Moorehead]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >
> > Come on, get a sense of humor!
> >
>
> I have a wonderful sense of humor.

Now THAT'S Funny! :)

-Trent

[Maule Driver]

"Trent Moorehead" > > > >
> > > Come on, get a sense of humor!
> > >
> >
> > I have a wonderful sense of humor.
>
> Now THAT'S Funny! :)
>
Truly!! On both points

[Randall D Redden]

Welcome to North Carolina. I have relocated to RDU from West Virginia. The
east cost does have a lot of airports but there is a triangle from western
VA to northern WV and over to western MD that have been known for more than
crashes than normal (latest Rick Hendricks King Air).



The elevation is not too bad but the WV area is just not forgiving. The
weather is mostly IMC with Ice almost all year long. If you look at a topo
of WV (All of it), VA (Blue Ridge MTN area) & MD (western) you will see a
lot of relief (nothing flat) with poor radar coverage.



If you stay in NC, Flying is great! You can enjoy the mountains to the
cost, and even see where it all started at Kitty Hawk. Enjoy your visit.

[[email protected]]

Adam
My feelings are that too many pilots can't land well under stress
anyway and NEVER practice precision landings. With an emergency, you've
got lots of stress and often limited areas to land....most of which
will require a precision landing to minimize the damage potential to
occupants. (This for an off airport landing of course.)
With thousands of hours crop dusting and operating off marginal strips
I've had ample opportunity to pass that information and experience to
the pilots and students I fly with.
Just to have an airport close by does not automatically mean you can
dead stick it and walk away a hero. That nasty STRESS factor raises its
head and screws up what could have been a very Ho-Hum landing and a
push or tow to the maintenance area. I've made hundreds (if not
thousands) of off airport landings with airplanes and only wrinkled one
aircraft in the process but when the engine failed it was only about
200'agl and not many options. OTOH, I've had engine failures during a
spray run and got it down OK just thinking ahead of what I was doing.
If you are concerned, there is no reason why you can't limp from
airport to airport just in case you have an engine failure. Better safe
than sorry but it sure will limit where you go and what you see!
I'd rather spend some time on precision landings just in case you have
to do an off airport touchdown.
Fly safe and enjoy it.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Maule Driver]

What you said. I love the thing about being near an airport not
guaranteeing anything. I've watched 2 a/c balled up by pilots who knew
better but tried to strech a glide to the runway.

But maybe you want to clarify 'precision landing practice'.

From another thread:
"I managed 8 touch and goes within the space of .8 hours ...(deleted)....
I'm
all about the zen of the approach. I really like bringing it in over
the end of the runway, with the airplane at the same height each time.
Touching down long, if I've blown the approach, is points against me
in my mind. In fact I thought about landing long on the last landing
simply to reduce taxiing because we were using 36 for landings today
and the FBO is at the north end of the runway. But even when I wanted
to land long, I found myself reverting to type and touched down before
the majority of the tire marks."

That isn't real useful practice for off-field or emergency landings. I
would suggest that one needs to practice non-standard approaches to
different touchdown points. Over obstacles, without obstacles, wind, etc
Sitting in the home approach doing touch and gos with all the speeds,
turnpoints, and sight pictures locked in does not prepare you to put it on a
curving road with power lines and reflectors. Or an atheletic field. Let
alone the fine points of whether you should land with the furrows or
against them. Or why you should really focus on that out building that you
aren't going to hit (because there is probably a power line running to it
that you will hit).

I come at this from glider outlandings where I've logged just under 50.
Selway - I can't imagine your career.

Nothing concentrates the mind like silence at 500ft.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Adam
> My feelings are that too many pilots can't land well under stress
> anyway and NEVER practice precision landings. With an emergency, you've
> got lots of stress and often limited areas to land....most of which
> will require a precision landing to minimize the damage potential to
> occupants. (This for an off airport landing of course.)
> With thousands of hours crop dusting and operating off marginal strips
> I've had ample opportunity to pass that information and experience to
> the pilots and students I fly with.
> Just to have an airport close by does not automatically mean you can
> dead stick it and walk away a hero. That nasty STRESS factor raises its
> head and screws up what could have been a very Ho-Hum landing and a
> push or tow to the maintenance area. I've made hundreds (if not
> thousands) of off airport landings with airplanes and only wrinkled one
> aircraft in the process but when the engine failed it was only about
> 200'agl and not many options. OTOH, I've had engine failures during a
> spray run and got it down OK just thinking ahead of what I was doing.
> If you are concerned, there is no reason why you can't limp from
> airport to airport just in case you have an engine failure. Better safe
> than sorry but it sure will limit where you go and what you see!
> I'd rather spend some time on precision landings just in case you have
> to do an off airport touchdown.
> Fly safe and enjoy it.
> Ol Shy & Bashful
>

[[email protected]]

Maule Driver wrote:
> What you said. I love the thing about being near an airport not
> guaranteeing anything. I've watched 2 a/c balled up by pilots who
knew
> better but tried to strech a glide to the runway.
>
> But maybe you want to clarify 'precision landing practice'.
************************************
In response to that, I've started a whole new thread for Precision
Landings. I've been thinking about them and your comments regarding
rough fields, furrows, etc. A good topic to really get involved with.
Cheers
Ol Shy & Bashful
>
> From another thread:
> "I managed 8 touch and goes within the space of .8 hours
....(deleted)....
> I'm
> all about the zen of the approach. I really like bringing it in over
> the end of the runway, with the airplane at the same height each
time.
> Touching down long, if I've blown the approach, is points against me
> in my mind. In fact I thought about landing long on the last landing
> simply to reduce taxiing because we were using 36 for landings today
> and the FBO is at the north end of the runway. But even when I
wanted
> to land long, I found myself reverting to type and touched down
before
> the majority of the tire marks."
>
> That isn't real useful practice for off-field or emergency landings.
I
> would suggest that one needs to practice non-standard approaches to
> different touchdown points. Over obstacles, without obstacles, wind,
etc
> Sitting in the home approach doing touch and gos with all the speeds,
> turnpoints, and sight pictures locked in does not prepare you to put
it on a
> curving road with power lines and reflectors. Or an atheletic field.
Let
> alone the fine points of whether you should land with the furrows or
> against them. Or why you should really focus on that out building
that you
> aren't going to hit (because there is probably a power line running
to it
> that you will hit).
>
> I come at this from glider outlandings where I've logged just under
50.
> Selway - I can't imagine your career.
>
> Nothing concentrates the mind like silence at 500ft.
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Adam
> > My feelings are that too many pilots can't land well under stress
> > anyway and NEVER practice precision landings. With an emergency,
you've
> > got lots of stress and often limited areas to land....most of which
> > will require a precision landing to minimize the damage potential
to
> > occupants. (This for an off airport landing of course.)
> > With thousands of hours crop dusting and operating off marginal
strips
> > I've had ample opportunity to pass that information and experience
to
> > the pilots and students I fly with.
> > Just to have an airport close by does not automatically mean you
can
> > dead stick it and walk away a hero. That nasty STRESS factor raises
its
> > head and screws up what could have been a very Ho-Hum landing and a
> > push or tow to the maintenance area. I've made hundreds (if not
> > thousands) of off airport landings with airplanes and only wrinkled
one
> > aircraft in the process but when the engine failed it was only
about
> > 200'agl and not many options. OTOH, I've had engine failures during
a
> > spray run and got it down OK just thinking ahead of what I was
doing.
> > If you are concerned, there is no reason why you can't limp from
> > airport to airport just in case you have an engine failure. Better
safe
> > than sorry but it sure will limit where you go and what you see!
> > I'd rather spend some time on precision landings just in case you
have
> > to do an off airport touchdown.
> > Fly safe and enjoy it.
> > Ol Shy & Bashful
> >