Engine failure on final

[Ron Garret]

The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
I've been puzzled about for some time now.

If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?

rg

[Happy Dog]

"Ron Garret" >
> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
> can do about it. Is that true?

Unless you do every landing power off with room to spare, yes. Or, aim for
the mid point of a 2500' plus field. There are ways to do it. But, almost
nobody does. Base turn should be doable power off in most cases in a 172 or
similar glider.

> Or have I missed something? What
> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?

Land short. That's why the slow idle check during the run-up is important.

moo

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:56:22 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
>do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
>engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
>can do about it. Is that true?

Yes, that's true, and it's why the Old Timers taught power-off
landings, and it's why I fly them routinely.

(To tell the truth, I also like the feeling of whooshing down without
that engine blatting away. Perhaps I was a glider pilot in another
life.)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Garret > posted:

> The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
> I've been puzzled about for some time now.
>
> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
> you can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to
> final?
>
As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a viable
option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings as a rule. If
I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway, engine or no.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a viable
>option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings as a rule. If
>I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway, engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
then?

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:56:22 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
>I've been puzzled about for some time now.
>
>If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
>do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
>engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
>can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
>should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?
>
>rg

Can anyone cite an instance when a pilot lost his engine while on
final and landed short because of it?

Thanks, Corky Scott

[Denny]

If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
you
can do about it. Is that true?
************************************************** ***********************

Worse than that, is that I have noticed that many pilots seem to take
off using power... That guarantees that they absolutely will land short
if they lose power... What should we all do about that?

Denny <jeez>

[Sport Pilot]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable
> >option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings as a
rule. If
> >I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway, engine or no.
>
> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
> then?

Noting you can do about requested extended downwind leg. But you could
keep your decent low or delay the decent to give you more reach. Also
consider a flapless landing to keep the glide angle shallow. Wait to
add flaps when you are certain to make the runway.

[[email protected]]

neil wrote:
> >As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a viable
> >option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings as a rule. If
> >I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway, engine or no.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
> then?

I was about to ask that, too. Depending on the airport, it would be
tricky to make power-off approaches from the downwind *as a rule*. Not
only is there the situation Larry mentioned above (3rd, 4th or 5th
behind who-knows-what), but also airports with two runways that are
staggered by 1500' or so and ATCs frequently instructing you to switch
runways at the last minute.

[David Gunter]

So what do you do when you are on 1/4-mile final and you spot a coyote
or two playing around in the middle of the runway? This has happened to
me repeatedly in Santa Fe and just serves to remind me that I want some
backup power just in case the landing isn't assured. Perhaps you don't
see this where you fly "routinely" but it could always be something else.
I typically pull the throttle all the way back to idle about 1/4 mile
out, Cessna 172.

-david
--
David Gunter
Santa Fe, NM

In > Cub Driver wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:56:22 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
>>If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
>>do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
>>engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
>>you can do about it. Is that true?
>
> Yes, that's true, and it's why the Old Timers taught power-off
> landings, and it's why I fly them routinely.
>
> (To tell the truth, I also like the feeling of whooshing down without
> that engine blatting away. Perhaps I was a glider pilot in another
> life.)
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net
>

[Ron Garret]

In article . com>,
"Sport Pilot" > wrote:

>
> Noting you can do about requested extended downwind leg.

It depends on how extended, of course, but I will often add power and
climb on an extended downwind. (If you extend your downwind for rwy 16
at VNY long enough without climbing you'll end up landing on the 405.)
Also, you've got a lot better glide performance before you start to add
flaps. So downwind doesn't worry me nearly as much as final. If you're
on a glide path at 1.3 VS (which is usually pretty close to best glide
already) and you need power to maintain it, then if you lose that power
it seems to me that you're pretty much hosed.

rg

[Dale]

In article >,
Corky Scott > wrote:


> Can anyone cite an instance when a pilot lost his engine while on
> final and landed short because of it?


Anchorage Int'l in the 80's. Piper low-wing, ran out of gas on final to
6L..ditched in the inlet, minor injury. I don't remember the exact date
but do remember the incident since I'm one of the fireman that plucked
her off the beach with a helicopter.

I can remember a couple more occuring at Merrill Field.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:54:38 -0500, Corky Scott
> wrote in
>::

>Can anyone cite an instance when a pilot lost his engine while on
>final and landed short because of it?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X08676&key=1

[dave]

Corky,
I wish I had more information but back in the late eighties I worked in
a building with several different companies in it. You get to know many
of the faces over time. I bumped into a guy at PNE that worked in the
building but I didn't know. It turns out that he was working on his
instrument rating. He mentioned that there was another pilot in his
office. I knew exactly who he was talking about because the guy walked
with a limp. The story I got, and I've got no reason to doubt it, is
that this gentleman had crashed short of an airport he was landing at
because he lost his engine on final. I was always taught to fly a
pattern so that you can make the runway if your engine quits from any
point in the pattern. In fact, I can remeber my instructors routinely
chopping power in the pattern. This was in Warriors when I started my
training and then in Cubs and 152 where I finished my trainging. When
I did my exam for my private, the examiner cut the throttle way out on
downwind and made me glide to a landing.

In my citabria, I like to cut the power when I'm abeam the numbers on
downwind and fly a tight pattern.

Dave
68 7ECA

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:56:22 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
>>I've been puzzled about for some time now.
>>
>>If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
>>do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
>>engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
>>can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
>>should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?
>>
>>rg
>
>
> Can anyone cite an instance when a pilot lost his engine while on
> final and landed short because of it?
>
> Thanks, Corky Scott

[Robert M. Gary]

Ron Garret wrote:
> The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
> I've been puzzled about for some time now.
>
> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most
people
> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
you
> can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to
final?

Raise the gear. You'll glide better.

[Scott D.]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:58:29 -0600, David Gunter
> wrote:

>This has happened to me repeatedly in Santa Fe


I have only flown into SAF three times and that has been in the last 4
months and EVERY time I flew in there, there were always coyotes on
the runway or taxiway. Seems like they would try and do something
about that.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Scott D.]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:54:38 -0500, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>
>Can anyone cite an instance when a pilot lost his engine while on
>final and landed short because of it?
>
Here is another one that happened here last year in Colorado Springs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030618X00899&key=1


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Michael]

Ron Garret wrote:
> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most
people
> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
you
> can do about it. Is that true?

More or less. In some cases you can play tricks with retracting
gear/flaps, but usually it's not worth it.

The important question is this - other than running out of gas, what
would cause you to go from not having any engine problems at all, to
not having enough power to maintain a 3 degree glideslope (surely you
don't fly any flatter than that?) in the time it takes to fly a pattern
at the reduced power setting used in the pattern? Honestly, I can't
think of anything. And of course if you have engine problems or aren't
sure about having enough fuel, you will, I assume, fly a power-off
pattern and commit to land.

Many instructors teach power-off patterns (idle abeam the numbers). I
teach it too, but not as a normal procedure. It's simply not practical
most of the time (due to traffic). Of course if I were teaching in the
average rental (and teaching people who were going to be flying typical
rentals) I might feel differently.

Michael

[Maule Driver]

Truly here. It's just habit probably because I am a glider pilot. Fact
is, when there's traffic, I follow it and otherwise conform. But most
of my landings (e.g. home 'port) are without such traffic.

I generally just can't bring myself to consciously fly out of range
after I'm in range of a safe surface. When the wind is up, I probably
slip out of range anyway.

YMMV. I fly a simple a/c with simple needs.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a viable
>>option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings as a rule. If
>>I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway, engine or no.
>
>
> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
> then?
>
>

[Julian Scarfe]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...

> Unless you do every landing power off with room to spare, yes.

The flip-side of doing every landing power-off, particularly when training
in the pattern, is that you *may* be putting enough extra stress on the
engine to make it *more* likely that the engine will fail in a difficult
position. Hence you may be increasing the overall risk by that pattern of
behaviour.

With typical trainers, it seems unlikely that it would have much long-term
effect. But with larger engines that require more delicate handling, I'd be
very reluctant to fly power-off landings on a regular basis. The effect may
be small but so is, as Michael said, the chance of a catastrophic engine
failure during the period when your glideslope makes a difference.

I'm surprised that the only two accidents that have been cited involve IFR
flights on an approach. They may not have had a choice of glideslope.

Julian Scarfe

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Garret wrote:
>
> What
> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?

That's going to depend on the type of landing I was planning to make. With a
normal landing, I won't have power on at that point, so let's assume I'm
dragging it in for a short field landing. Or maybe I just screwed up and I have
power on 'cause I'm a little low. If I've got flaps down, up they come. I will
lower or raise the nose as necessary to hit 83 mph (best glide). I'll reduce
that speed when I flare.

Then I will hit the cheapest and softest thing out there as slowly as I can.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[vincent p. norris]

>I typically pull the throttle all the way back to idle about 1/4 mile
>out, Cessna 172.

I suggest that you should not be on final 1/4 mile out. Fly the
pattern so you can make the runway from any point on downwind, base,
or final, if the engine quits.

vince norris

[G.R. Patterson III]

"vincent p. norris" wrote:
>
> I suggest that you should not be on final 1/4 mile out.

That would be short final distance. At normal approach speeds and descent rates,
you should be about 200' AGL at 1/4 mile out.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Jay Beckman]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >I typically pull the throttle all the way back to idle about 1/4 mile
>>out, Cessna 172.
>
> I suggest that you should not be on final 1/4 mile out. Fly the
> pattern so you can make the runway from any point on downwind, base,
> or final, if the engine quits.
>
> vince norris

Doesn't 500' AGL at 1/4 mile equal a 3 degree glideslope?
(6076 / 4) / 500 = 3.038

You don't think you'd hit pavement from 1/4 mile out at 500' AGL?

Do you consider 1/4 mile out turning base to final a "bomber pattern."

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Hilton]

Ron Garret wrote:
>
> The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
> I've been puzzled about for some time now.
>
> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
> can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?

Is that true? Have you missed something? Yes, lots!

0. Airspeed! Best place to land! (Rmember ABC)
1. Raise flaps
2. Prop low RPM
3. Raise gear
4. Then quickly run through obvious engine stuff - don't forget to pump the
primer

Of course, 1-4 apply if you think you're not going to make a runway.

Hilton

[BTIZ]

> Yes, that's true, and it's why the Old Timers taught power-off
> landings, and it's why I fly them routinely.
>
> (To tell the truth, I also like the feeling of whooshing down without
> that engine blatting away. Perhaps I was a glider pilot in another
> life.)
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford

Dan, when I was flying those Cubs at your place.. I was taught that in
winter it is best to keep some power up.. letting it idle would cool those
cylinders and the spark could go out.. but a J-3 should never fly a pattern
outside of power off glide anyway. I've seen the spark go out when idling on
the ground in cold weather.

BT

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:58:29 -0600, David Gunter
> wrote:

>So what do you do when you are on 1/4-mile final and you spot a coyote
>or two playing around in the middle of the runway?

I'd put on power and go around. I didn't say I switched the engine
off, only that I went to idle when abreast the landing spot.

We have some (a few) coyotes in SE New Hampshire. When I first saw
them, on the ice in the moonlight, I thought they were wolves, one
blonde and one dark. Gorgeous animals. Took my breath away.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:02:10 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>Dan, when I was flying those Cubs at your place.. I was taught that in
>winter it is best to keep some power up.. letting it idle would cool those
>cylinders and the spark could go out.. but a J-3 should never fly a pattern
>outside of power off glide anyway. I've seen the spark go out when idling on
>the ground in cold weather.

When 80 octane became impossible to get, the airport got STCs for the
Cubs and brought in mogas from a supplier in Maine (no MBTE or
alcohol). By coincidence or not, we experienced a rash of engine
quitting in cold weather. Generally of course this was on the ground,
but even that can be awkward if it's at another airport--nobody wants
to be involved with propping a Cub any longer. But it happened to an
instructor while doing stall training with a student, very bad. (He
started the engine again by diving the Cub.)

So the rule came in: we can't rent the planes unless the thermometer
is over 20 degrees. (They also pulled the STCs and placarded the Cubs
for 100LL only. There's one school of thought that holds that this was
less because of engines quitting than because one instructor didn't
like the smell of mogas.)

Anyhow, it's very unlikely that an engine will quit in the pattern,
until you flare. That's my conclusion from that winter's flying. (That
is: quit because it's at idle and not at 1500 rpm.)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On 21 Jan 2005 11:46:20 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>Many instructors teach power-off patterns (idle abeam the numbers). I
>teach it too, but not as a normal procedure. It's simply not practical
>most of the time (due to traffic).

This of course is the whole point. Power-off landings are the sensible
thing to do, but traffic at some airports makes them unwise. I don't
know if it's "most of the time"; certainly it's very seldom that I
encounter heavy traffic.

I almost always fly power-off from the time I am abreast my landing
spot, and that's fine at the airports I inhabit. I am almost never in
the pattern with another aircraft--and if there is, it's usually
another Cub. If there is a plane on the runway when I am in the
pattern, I reckon it a busy day; if two, a very busy day.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Blueskies]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message news:jHlId.4912$hu.3754@fed1read01...
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message ...
>> >I typically pull the throttle all the way back to idle about 1/4 mile
>>>out, Cessna 172.
>>
>> I suggest that you should not be on final 1/4 mile out. Fly the
>> pattern so you can make the runway from any point on downwind, base,
>> or final, if the engine quits.
>>
>> vince norris
>
> Doesn't 500' AGL at 1/4 mile equal a 3 degree glideslope?
> (6076 / 4) / 500 = 3.038
>
> You don't think you'd hit pavement from 1/4 mile out at 500' AGL?
>
> Do you consider 1/4 mile out turning base to final a "bomber pattern."
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
>


You can make the runway on a 3° glideslope when deadstick?

[Blueskies]

"Hilton" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>> The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
>> I've been puzzled about for some time now.
>>
>> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
>> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
>> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
>> can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
>> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?
>
> Is that true? Have you missed something? Yes, lots!
>
> 0. Airspeed! Best place to land! (Rmember ABC)
> 1. Raise flaps
> 2. Prop low RPM
> 3. Raise gear
> 4. Then quickly run through obvious engine stuff - don't forget to pump the
> primer
>
> Of course, 1-4 apply if you think you're not going to make a runway.
>
> Hilton
>
>

Also, lower nose if necessary to get best glide speed...

[Klein]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:40:33 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>> >I typically pull the throttle all the way back to idle about 1/4 mile
>>>out, Cessna 172.
>>
>> I suggest that you should not be on final 1/4 mile out. Fly the
>> pattern so you can make the runway from any point on downwind, base,
>> or final, if the engine quits.
>>
>> vince norris
>
>Doesn't 500' AGL at 1/4 mile equal a 3 degree glideslope?
>(6076 / 4) / 500 = 3.038

Methinks you forgot to apply the appropriate trigonometric function.
What you should have done is: glideslope angle = arctan(rise/run). In
this case that would be: glideslope angle = arctan(500/1500) = 18.4
degrees. Pretty steep. ;-)

Working it the other way, for a 3 degree glideslope, at 500 ft you'd
still be 1.57 nm from the end of the runway. Unless you're flying a
glider, you need power to hold a 3 degree glideslope.

>You don't think you'd hit pavement from 1/4 mile out at 500' AGL?
>
>Do you consider 1/4 mile out turning base to final a "bomber pattern."

What I enjoy doing is flying downwind about 3/4 mile offset from the
runway and if "cleared to land" during the downwind, I go to idle
abeam the numbers and fly a circular arc to touchdown. No flaps
(don't have any) in an Extra 300L. Drops like a rock. Holding 90 kts
to the flare retains plenty of energy for the flare. I'd probably do
it differently in a 172. ;-)

Klein

[george]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:56:22 -0800, Ron Garret
>
> wrote:
>
> >If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most
people
> >do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> >engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
you
> >can do about it. Is that true?
>
> Yes, that's true, and it's why the Old Timers taught power-off
> landings, and it's why I fly them routinely.
>
> (To tell the truth, I also like the feeling of whooshing down without
> that engine blatting away. Perhaps I was a glider pilot in another
> life.)
>
You've got it in one Dan !
Every landing in a glider/sailplane is a forced landing and circuit
planning becomes nearly automatic.
However with all the posters talk of glideslopes and rates of descent
and other esoteric subjects remember there are two laws a pilot has to
follow.
1) Fly the aeroplane
2) For anything else refer to 1
:-)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
>> as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
>> engine or no.
>
> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
> then?
>
Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the pattern
slower rather than lower or hold altitude on that "looooong, extended
downwind leg" rather than descend after crossing the usual abeam point and
turn base within gliding range. If you don't guarantee that you can make
the runway, who will? ;-)

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> neil wrote:
>>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
>>> as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
>>> engine or no.
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
>> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
>> then?
>
> I was about to ask that, too. Depending on the airport, it would be
> tricky to make power-off approaches from the downwind *as a rule*. Not
> only is there the situation Larry mentioned above (3rd, 4th or 5th
> behind who-knows-what), but also airports with two runways that are
> staggered by 1500' or so and ATCs frequently instructing you to switch
> runways at the last minute.
>
Well, unless you're based at such an airport, those situations become the
exception, rather than the rule. If you are based at such an airport,
then, simply change the rule, and do power-on approaches. ;-)

The reasons that I prefer not to do that when I don't have to is that I
get lots of "dead stick" practice, which I think is a Good Thing.

Neil

[vincent p. norris]

>Do you consider 1/4 mile out turning base to final a "bomber pattern."

In the Marines, I spent about two years flying an R5C (what the Air
Force called a C-46). It was the size of WW II heavy bombers. We
routinely flew finals of less than 1/4 mile.

In a Cherokee or C-172, two or three hundred yards are plenty.

vince norris

[Rob Montgomery]

Not to pick nits... but... doesn't an idle engine put out some thrust? I
suspect (please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm full of it... it happens
with surprising regularity) that if you're making any kind of a short field
landing, you're going to be out of glide range when the engine quits. The
best solution is to land at airports with a really nice safety zone before
the runway.

-Rob
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:58:29 -0600, David Gunter
> > wrote:
>
>>So what do you do when you are on 1/4-mile final and you spot a coyote
>>or two playing around in the middle of the runway?
>
> I'd put on power and go around. I didn't say I switched the engine
> off, only that I went to idle when abreast the landing spot.
>
> We have some (a few) coyotes in SE New Hampshire. When I first saw
> them, on the ice in the moonlight, I thought they were wolves, one
> blonde and one dark. Gorgeous animals. Took my breath away.
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
>>> as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
>>> engine or no.
>>
>> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
>> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
>> then?
>>
>Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the pattern
>slower rather than lower

So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within gliding
distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while four other
aircraft head cross country several miles from the runway? Doubtful.

>or hold altitude on that "looooong, extended downwind leg" rather than
>descend after crossing the usual abeam point and
>turn base within gliding range.

See above.

>If you don't guarantee that you can make the runway, who will? ;-)

The power developed by your engine.

At John Wayne airport (a Class C facility) it is not unusual to find
yourself on downwind well outside the surface area during "rush hour"
operations. It's not feasible to remain within power off gliding
distance of the runway threshold at these times. An instrument
approach imposes similar difficulty in maintaining power off gliding
distance to the runway. I can understand how it can reduce exposure
to landing short, but I don't find it often possible except at times
of low traffic density.

[Hilton]

Rob Montgomery wrote:
> Not to pick nits... but... doesn't an idle engine put out some thrust?

On the ground while taxiing, sure it does, just take your feet off the
brakes and away you go. At flying speed however, it (perhaps surprisingly)
causes drag.

Hilton

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:28:17 GMT, "Hilton" >
wrote in et>::

>Rob Montgomery wrote:
>> Not to pick nits... but... doesn't an idle engine put out some thrust?
>
>On the ground while taxiing, sure it does, just take your feet off the
>brakes and away you go. At flying speed however, it (perhaps surprisingly)
>causes drag.

Do you think that drag caused by an idling engine (and propeller) is
increased or decreased when it is producing zero power instead of idle
power?

[Julian Scarfe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> Do you think that drag caused by an idling engine (and propeller) is
> increased or decreased when it is producing zero power instead of idle
> power?

It's an interesting question.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1934/naca-report-464/

includes comparison of a stopped prop, feathered prop, windmilling prop,
windmilling prop attached to a dead engine, and a prop driven by an idling
engine.

At low speeds, the idling engine produces thrust, while at higher speeds (75
mph in the case of the experiment) it is almost indistinguishable from the
prop driving a dead engine.

Julian Scarfe

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
>>>
>>>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>>>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
>>>> as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
>>>> engine or no.
>>>
>>> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
>>> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
>>> then?
>>>
>> Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
>> pattern slower rather than lower
>
> So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within gliding
> distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while four other
> aircraft head cross country several miles from the runway? Doubtful.
>
Larry... be reasonable! Few are likely to assess the situation and insist
that they fly the pattern in an irresponsible manner (although, I've been
in the pattern with some of those "few", as well). There are times when I
find myself behind some folks in a Cessna flying a base leg 2 or 3 miles
out, and in such a situation, I don't cut them off. ;-) I'm only
pointing out that there are usually other options than just flying long
downwind patterns and relying on engine power to save your bacon, and
being practiced with those options is a Good Thing. And, I realize that if
you're flying into busy air space, you don't have the option to practice.
;-)

Neil

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:28:26 -0700, Klein > wrote:

> I go to idle
>abeam the numbers and fly a circular arc to touchdown. No flaps
>(don't have any) in an Extra 300L. Drops like a rock. Holding 90 kts
>to the flare retains plenty of energy for the flare. I'd probably do
>it differently in a 172. ;-)

I'd love to try this, but I fear I couldn't see the runway in the arc.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:28:09 -0500, "Rob Montgomery" >
wrote:

>Not to pick nits... but... doesn't an idle engine put out some thrust?

I asked my friend/CFI about this. He reckoned that it netted out to
about zero, and that I probably wouldn't notice the difference.

The only time the plane ever moved when the engine was at idle was on
glare ice. Then it taxied so fast that the only way I could negotiate
the turns (race-track oval plowed out) was to switch to right magneto,
the one that shows the greater drop.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Maule Driver]

and that will often mean flying a little faster than that since you are
probably gliding upwind to a point on the ground, after discounting the
fact that you are probably far below gross. If you don't have a feel
for that speed, err on the high side if there is a wind.

Blueskies wrote:
>
> Also, lower nose if necessary to get best glide speed...
>

[Dale]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:


> I asked my friend/CFI about this. He reckoned that it netted out to
> about zero, and that I probably wouldn't notice the difference.

There is thrust at idle, and it's enough to make a difference. Have you
CFI go up and make a true dead stick landing, he'll change his story.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article et>,
"Hilton" > wrote:


> On the ground while taxiing, sure it does, just take your feet off the
> brakes and away you go. At flying speed however, it (perhaps surprisingly)
> causes drag.


But not as much drag as a windmilling propellor.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[private]

Nobody has mentioned that one of the reasons to avoid aiming for the numbers
and to plan your touchdown point to be at the 1/3 point of a std 3000'
training rwy is to allow a margin for an engine failure on short final.

When doing a round base to touchdown approach this will also allow you to
see the runway sooner. In the real world you may be connecting a round
approach with a short field landing and will have to identify the features
of the extended centerline to navigate by. Caution, there are many
opportunities for CFIT.

Combining this approach with a constant slip allows you to control your
decent rate. I found it useful to practice this maneuver with some power on
to provide better engine temperature management. If you do this you will be
set up just right for soft field practice, and will avoid the inevitable
small stumble that often happens when you advance the throttle on a cold
idling engine.

At a busy training airport this maneuver, combined with a request to ATC for
simulated engine failure exercise(when making downwind call) will allow you
to pass a slow or underpowered&heavier aircraft or one that seems to be on a
xc circuit. ATC is not allowed to suggest this to you but they will know
exactly what you are doing. I have spent many practice hours doing this
exercise on every circuit, if ATC is not able they will deny your request or
sometimes give you a spacing or call your base if there is another ac that
has not yet cleared the rwy.

Aircraft with tandem seating are nice for this approach because they look
the same right or left. Aircraft without flaps really like this approach
especially in real engine out practice as it gives you great control of
decent. You can't do it for real if you don't practice when its not..

Caution YMMV as always, seek qualified instruction, a high time taildragger
instructor is a good bet, avoid 231 hr. wonders.

Blue skies to all


"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:28:26 -0700, Klein > wrote:
>
> > I go to idle
> >abeam the numbers and fly a circular arc to touchdown. No flaps
> >(don't have any) in an Extra 300L. Drops like a rock. Holding 90 kts
> >to the flare retains plenty of energy for the flare. I'd probably do
> >it differently in a 172. ;-)
>
> I'd love to try this, but I fear I couldn't see the runway in the arc.
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net

[george]

Now hang on. The types of aircraft most of us fly will never have a
'windmilling' prop.
The engine quits the prop stops !
and an idling engine will add to the 'gliding' distance

[Dave Stadt]

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Now hang on. The types of aircraft most of us fly will never have a
> 'windmilling' prop.
> The engine quits the prop stops !
> and an idling engine will add to the 'gliding' distance


Been there and you are wrong. Maybe dead wrong. The engine stops, the prop
windmills and the drag goes way up. In boats (sail) the rule of thumb is a
windmilling prop is equal in drag to a flat disc the same diameter as the
prop. Stop the prop and the boat speeds up. Don't suppose a fixed pitch
airplane prop is any different.

[Hilton]

Blueskies wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
> > Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >> The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
> >> I've been puzzled about for some time now.
> >>
> >> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
> >> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> >> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
you
> >> can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
> >> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?
> >
> > Is that true? Have you missed something? Yes, lots!
> >
> > 0. Airspeed! Best place to land! (Rmember ABC)
> > 1. Raise flaps
> > 2. Prop low RPM
> > 3. Raise gear
> > 4. Then quickly run through obvious engine stuff - don't forget to pump
the
> > primer
> >
> > Of course, 1-4 apply if you think you're not going to make a runway.
> >
> > Hilton

> Also, lower nose if necessary to get best glide speed...

That's the most important thing - that's why I listed it first.

Since you brought up the aircraft's attitude, you'll probably find that
you'll need to raise the nose, not lower it during the entire sequence.
Why? Because you'll probably be close the Vbg and possibly above it (I tend
to keep my speed up and slow down towards the end), but most importantly,
you need to pitch up to 'counteract' the raising the flaps; i.e. raising the
flaps lowers the Cl, so increase the attitude to increase the Cl to its
starting value - that way you don't get that 'pilot-is-a-passenger' sinking
feeling - same goes for climb-out when using flaps for take-off.

Hilton

[Hilton]

george wrote:
> Now hang on. The types of aircraft most of us fly will never have a
> 'windmilling' prop.
> The engine quits the prop stops !
> and an idling engine will add to the 'gliding' distance

Nope. Just to add to what Dave said: Let's assume you're flying along and
the engine starts shaking violently because part of you prop 'departed'.
You pull back the throttle and mixture immediately and 'kill' the engine - I
bet the prop will keep turning. Is this bad? Damn right, the engine is
about to shake itself off. So what do you do? Pitch up - get as close to
stall speed as possible to stop the prop - ASAP!!!

If anyone has seen Dave Morss' video from his Reno Race, you'll know what I
mean.

Hilton

[Dale]

In article . com>,
"george" > wrote:

> Now hang on. The types of aircraft most of us fly will never have a
> 'windmilling' prop.
> The engine quits the prop stops !
> and an idling engine will add to the 'gliding' distance
>

Oh really. With the engine failures I've had in Cessna's the prop
continued to turn until I was in the flare or on the runway.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 at 11:28:26 in message
>, Klein >
wrote:

>Working it the other way, for a 3 degree glideslope, at 500 ft you'd
>still be 1.57 nm from the end of the runway. Unless you're flying a
>glider, you need power to hold a 3 degree glideslope.

Correct. To hold a 3 degree slope at a steady speed requires an
effective Lift/Drag ratio of about 19. London City Airport I believe
has a standard glide slope of 8 or 9 degrees which would mean Lift/Drag
ratios of 7 to 6.4. Most light aircraft can manage a steeper approach
than 3 degrees I assume? Winds have a dramatic effect on these figures.

9 degrees would mean 0.52 nm at 500 ft

Anyone able to quote 'glide' angle at idle for various types, with and
without flaps or gear?
--
David CL Francis

[Big John]

Dan

Let me use your posting to hang some data on :o)

In the 'old' days pilots were taught to put throttle to idle opposite
the numbers on down wind. You then made a power off pattern to runway.
You of course cleared the engine a couple of times on base and turning
final.

In the 70's, while I was instructing, I was advised by an FAA rep that
the FAA had changed their recommended procedure for patterns.

You set medium low power on the engine and left it there until you
pulled to idle above over run. Their rational as explained to me was
that if the engine was running and you didn't change anything
(throttle) the statistics showed that engine had a very low
probability of quitting.

I didn't agree with them but followed their recommendations while
teaching.

Now for those who are #4 or$5 in an extended pattern. If you set a
throttle setting that will let you fly that extended patten and don't
screw with the throttle then you should have an engine unless you run
out of gas.

So there.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:43:28 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:56:22 -0800, Ron Garret >
>wrote:
>
>>If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
>>do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
>>engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
>>can do about it. Is that true?
>
>Yes, that's true, and it's why the Old Timers taught power-off
>landings, and it's why I fly them routinely.
>
>(To tell the truth, I also like the feeling of whooshing down without
>that engine blatting away. Perhaps I was a glider pilot in another
>life.)
>
>
>-- all the best, Dan Ford
>
>email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
>Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>the blog: www.danford.net

[Newps]

Hilton wrote:
So what do you do? Pitch up - get as close to
> stall speed as possible to stop the prop - ASAP!!!

In VFR nothing wrong with stalling the airplane if you have to.

[Hilton]

Newps wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> So what do you do? Pitch up - get as close to
> > stall speed as possible to stop the prop - ASAP!!!
>
> In VFR nothing wrong with stalling the airplane if you have to.

Agreed. BTW: The video is actually very 'interesting' - and his commentary
and discussion of the events are even more interesting. After managing to
stop the prop (I don't know if I would have thought of that in the Oh Crap
moment - now I would), he lowered the landing gear. Because of the damage
to the cowl etc, the nose wheel did not extend. So Dave 'wiggled' the
rudder pedals which caused the nosewheel to extend and he landed safely.
After hopping out, he realised that the engine had broken off its mounts and
was hanging on by wires and pipes! He said in hind-sight, wiggling the
rudder pedals and yawing the plane from side to side probably wasn't that
smart, althought it sure made sense at the time.

Hilton

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:35:25 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Their rational as explained to me was
>that if the engine was running and you didn't change anything
>(throttle) the statistics showed that engine had a very low
>probability of quitting.

This sounds like my doc's advice to me about a cardiovascular scan:
that it wasn't worth the money, which as I recall was $92. Now, that's
what it costs to go to the doc on a bright sunny day (he bills that
much; he doesn't get paid that much, but never mind).

He is talking about the whole universe of ageing American males: it's
cheaper to treat the occasional aortic aneurerism (well, however you
spell them) than to give every one a $92 scan.

But if you're the guy who dies from an aneurism, the math is cold
comfort.

Same with engine quitting while you're flying a wide pattern :)

No thanks! I got the $92 scan, and I fly the close pattern, power off
abeam the landing point.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Brian]

Let's see: 1/4 @ 200 ft that would be:

1/4 mile = 6040/4 = 1510 ft

1510/200 = 7.55 L/D required.

OK maybe flaps up and best L/D Speed a C-172 might have 7.5 L/D ratio.
Of course that assumes no head wind.

I think I would prefer to be a little bit higher that that in most
cases .

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Brian]

And I have done many flight reviews with students that reduce power
abeam the numbers and then desend to about 300 feet while extending
there downwind to landing traffic. Then the fly the base and long
final at 300 feet.

A much better technique is to fly the extending downwind, base and
maybe even part of final at a 1000' AGL. Once within gliding range,
then reduce power. At least at 1000' feet you should have 20-30 seconds
to consider you options of where you are going to land should the
engine fail. At 300' your going to hit what ever is directly in front
of you.

Brian

[Brian]

Simple, just don't descend until you can glide to the Runway. Give
yourself at least a 1000' feet to react if you need to put yourself in
a situation where a landing at a location other than the runway is your
only option.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Brian]

Ok what kind of aircraft do most of us fly?

Aeronca 7AC with a Wood prop will stop fairly easily if you slow down
below 50 mph.
C-150/C-152 Need to hold on the edge of a Stalll for a about 30 seconds
C-172 Need to hold on the edge of a Stall for a about 30 seconds
C-182 Have never been able to stop the prop
PA28-151 Need to hold on the edge of a Stall for a about 30 seconds
PA38-112 Need to hold on the edge of a Stall for a about 30 seconds

I have yet to fly and airplane where at the best glide speed the
propeller will not continue to windmill. YMMV.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Brian]

Depends on the airplane, most small trainers the smaller prop and low
approach speeds the drag from a windmilling prop is hardly noticable
from an idling engine.

On bigger airplanes the larger prop, Bigger engine (develops more HP
even at idle) and the higher approach speed( Drag goes up by the Square
of the speed) the difference between windmilling and idling can be more
noticable (Especially if the idle speed on the engine is set to high)
Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Brian]

I can think of two at my airport in the past 5 years. A C-182 landed
short in the power lines because the engine did not respond when he
added power.. And a Piper Cherokee that ran out of fuel on final and
landed in a feild short of the runway this summer..

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[G.R. Patterson III]

Brian wrote:
>
> Let's see: 1/4 @ 200 ft that would be:
>
> 1/4 mile = 6040/4 = 1510 ft
>
> 1510/200 = 7.55 L/D required.
>
> OK maybe flaps up and best L/D Speed a C-172 might have 7.5 L/D ratio.

At 60 knots, a Cessna 172 demonstrates a 12.2:1 glide ratio with flaps up.
Plenty of margin if you were in that configuration.

http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueAM00/basicsAM00.html

In my Maule, I will probably have 24 degrees of flaps down and be doing 65-70
mph. I will cover that quarter mile in less than 15 seconds, and it will take me
a few to react and drop that Johnson bar. Once I do, though, my rate of descent
will be a bit less than 500 fpm. Judging from the experiment in the above
article, the ROD of a 172 at 60 knots is also about that. Again, plenty of
margin.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

george wrote:
>
> The engine quits the prop stops !

This will only happen if the engine seizes. As Hilton stated, usually you must
slow to nearly stall speed to stop the prop. One of the AOPA Pilot authors ran
some empirical experiments with this and determined that, if you're below about
6,000' AGL, you will not gain enough efficiency by stopping the prop to make up
for the distance lost by slowing down below best glide speed. As Hilton also
points out, there could be times when there are more important considerations
than glide distance.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[george]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> george wrote:
> >
> > The engine quits the prop stops !
>
> This will only happen if the engine seizes. As Hilton stated, usually
you must
> slow to nearly stall speed to stop the prop. One of the AOPA Pilot
authors ran
> some empirical experiments with this and determined that, if you're
below about
> 6,000' AGL, you will not gain enough efficiency by stopping the prop
to make up
> for the distance lost by slowing down below best glide speed. As
Hilton also
> points out, there could be times when there are more important
considerations
> than glide distance.
>
Thank you . You get the prize :-)
Some of the posts had me looking for the feathering lever in the C152
(That is a tongue in cheek remark)

[Cub Driver]

On 24 Jan 2005 06:27:52 -0800, "Brian" > wrote:

>I have yet to fly and airplane where at the best glide speed the
>propeller will not continue to windmill. YMMV.

Not a definitive answer, of course, since the pilot could have brought
the nose up to 40 mph or so, but in this piccy the prop isn't turning
(yet!):

http://www.pipercubforum.com/handprop.htm

(Or at least I *hope* it's not turning!)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On 24 Jan 2005 06:02:38 -0800, "Brian" > wrote:

>A much better technique is to fly the extending downwind, base and
>maybe even part of final at a 1000' AGL. Once within gliding range,
>then reduce power. At least at 1000' feet you should have 20-30 seconds
>to consider you options of where you are going to land should the
>engine fail. At 300' your going to hit what ever is directly in front
>of you.

Well, that puts you at a different altitude than everyone else in the
pattern (especially at 7B3 where p.a. is 800 ft AGL :). And if I read
the second sentence correctly, you're not within gliding range until
you're on final, so if your engine quits you will go plop.

Why look around in search of a landing place when you've got an
airport in sight? Why not fly the pattern so that you can glide to the
runway from downwind or base?

(As posted, if I knew how to fly a 45 within gliding distance, I'd do
that too! The only things around 7B3 are houses, trees, and a
one-track railroad bed.)





-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[vincent p. norris]

>Nobody has mentioned that one of the reasons to avoid aiming for the numbers
>and to plan your touchdown point to be at the 1/3 point of a std 3000'
>training rwy is to allow a margin for an engine failure on short final.

Boy, I've been flying for a looooong time, and I never heard that one
before!

Strikes me as developing one bad habit to correct for another bad
habit.

If you fly a proper approach, you'll make the runway whether or not
the engine keeps running.

Unless you're landing at a place like Dulles, where touching down on
the numbers means a hell of along taxi, it's good practice to hit the
numbers. Someday it may save your hide.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>A much better technique is to fly the extending downwind, base and
>maybe even part of final at a 1000' AGL. Once within gliding range,
>then reduce power....

But you WERE withing gliding range when you were abeam at the 180, if
you flew a proper downwind leg. Unless circumstances *force* you to
extend the downwind, it is poor practice to do so.

vince norris

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
vincent p. norris > wrote:

> >Nobody has mentioned that one of the reasons to avoid aiming for the numbers
> >and to plan your touchdown point to be at the 1/3 point of a std 3000'
> >training rwy is to allow a margin for an engine failure on short final.
>
> Boy, I've been flying for a looooong time, and I never heard that one
> before!
>
> Strikes me as developing one bad habit to correct for another bad
> habit.
>
> If you fly a proper approach, you'll make the runway whether or not
> the engine keeps running.

Well, that's pretty much what prompted me to ask the question in the
first place. What exactly is a "proper approach"? I don't see how it's
possible to fly final with power on a trajectory that puts you on the
numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

rg

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
> I've been puzzled about for some time now.
>
> If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
> do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
> engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
> can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
> should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?

The "I always cut power on final" guys to the contrary (and I am not saying
that they are full of it, only that they may not have considered all
possibilities), I think you are missing something.

So try it. Set up just as you would for a power on landing, flaps down,
recommended airspeed, right on glide slope, and cut your power. See if you
can make it. If you can't, figure out why not.

But then you are on base. Well, turn straight toward the runway. Forget
about flying a square pattern. Set up for best glide. Experiment with it. Is
it easier to make the runway if you raise your flaps? How does the wind
affect it? Can you still do it if you start out somewhat low and slow? What
does it take to milk that last bit of distance out of your altitude? You can
read about this stuff forever, but actually practicing things and trying
them out will teach you a heck of a lot.

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:30:41 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

> I don't see how it's
>possible to fly final with power on a trajectory that puts you on the
>numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

That's why some of us fly power-off approaches. If your airport is
friendly to that technique, why not use it?

If you need a power-on approach to blend with other traffic or keep
the controller sane, then do that. After all, it's very unlikely that
your engine will quit--probably less likely than someone will bump
into you in the pattern.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote in
>>>>
>>>>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>>>>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
>>>>> as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
>>>>> engine or no.
>>>>
>>>> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
>>>> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
>>>> then?
>>>>
>>> Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
>>> pattern slower rather than lower
>>
>> So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within gliding
>> distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while four other
>> aircraft head cross country several miles from the runway? Doubtful.
>>
>Larry... be reasonable!

I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute word
'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to question your
meaning.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>> Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>>
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>>> > wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>>>>>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off
>>>>>> landings as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it
>>>>>> to a runway, engine or no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
>>>>> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at
>>>>> 2,000' then?
>>>>>
>>>> Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
>>>> pattern slower rather than lower
>>>
>>> So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within
>>> gliding distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while
>>> four other aircraft head cross country several miles from the
>>> runway? Doubtful.
>>>
>> Larry... be reasonable!
>
> I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute word
> 'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to question your
> meaning.
>
So... you object to "always" having a viable option? Obviously, there will
be times when one *doesn't* have a viable option. Still, I agree with my
instructors advice that abandoning viable options by choice shouldn't be
considered "safe flying". Nor should applying "rules" where doing so
results in the abandonment of viable options (even FARs don't insist on
such behavior). So, no, I don't think you were being reasonable, just
argumentative.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:36:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>> Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>>>> > wrote in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>>>>>>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off
>>>>>>> landings as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it
>>>>>>> to a runway, engine or no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
>>>>>> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at
>>>>>> 2,000' then?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
>>>>> pattern slower rather than lower
>>>>
>>>> So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within
>>>> gliding distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while
>>>> four other aircraft head cross country several miles from the
>>>> runway? Doubtful.
>>>>
>>> Larry... be reasonable!
>>
>> I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute word
>> 'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to question your
>> meaning.
>>
>So... you object to "always" having a viable option?

No.

>Obviously, there will >be times when one *doesn't* have a viable option.

That was my point.

>Still, I agree with my instructors advice that abandoning viable options
>by choice shouldn't be considered "safe flying".

Given your statement above, your choice should be to divert to another
airport when there are several aircraft in the pattern necessitating
an extended downwind leg in excess of gliding distance to the runway,
right?

>Nor should applying "rules" where doing so results in the abandonment
>of viable options (even FARs don't insist on such behavior). So, no,
>I don't think you were being reasonable, just argumentative.

Could it be that I was attempting to point out, that your instance on
remaining within gliding distance of the runway failed to consider the
fact that it is often impossible at busy airports? Isn't that
reasonable?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:36:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>> Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>>> > wrote in
>>> >::
>>>
>>>> Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>>>>> > wrote in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
>>>>>>>> viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off
>>>>>>>> landings as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it
>>>>>>>> to a runway, engine or no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
>>>>>>> looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at
>>>>>>> 2,000' then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
>>>>>> pattern slower rather than lower
>>>>>
>>>>> So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within
>>>>> gliding distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while
>>>>> four other aircraft head cross country several miles from the
>>>>> runway? Doubtful.
>>>>>
>>>> Larry... be reasonable!
>>>
>>> I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute
>>> word 'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to
>>> question your meaning.
>>>
>> So... you object to "always" having a viable option?
>
> No.
>
>> Obviously, there will >be times when one *doesn't* have a viable
>> option.
>
> That was my point.
>
Poorly made, I might add. Risk management is an unavoidable part of daily
life, and as such shouldn't require a lot of explanation. Ergo, you were
not being reasonable.

>> Still, I agree with my instructors advice that abandoning viable
>> options by choice shouldn't be considered "safe flying".
>
> Given your statement above, your choice should be to divert to another
> airport when there are several aircraft in the pattern necessitating
> an extended downwind leg in excess of gliding distance to the runway,
> right?
>
How would *increasing* the time in which an engine failure might occur by
flying to another airport be the best way to maintain viable options? If
one is concerned about the status of one's engine, one should minimize
their dependence on it, no? ;-)

>> Nor should applying "rules" where doing so results in the abandonment
>> of viable options (even FARs don't insist on such behavior). So, no,
>> I don't think you were being reasonable, just argumentative.
>
> Could it be that I was attempting to point out, that your instance on
> remaining within gliding distance of the runway failed to consider the
> fact that it is often impossible at busy airports? Isn't that
> reasonable?
>
Not really. Unless you actually believed that I was in some way implying
that no XC should ever take place. Was that to be your next point (of
course, "...make it to the pattern" would have made such an argument
difficult)? ;-)

Regards,

Neil

[Darrell S]

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> vincent p. norris > wrote:
>
>> >Nobody has mentioned that one of the reasons to avoid aiming for the
>> >numbers
>> >and to plan your touchdown point to be at the 1/3 point of a std 3000'
>> >training rwy is to allow a margin for an engine failure on short final.
>>
>> Boy, I've been flying for a looooong time, and I never heard that one
>> before!
>>
>> Strikes me as developing one bad habit to correct for another bad
>> habit.
>>
>> If you fly a proper approach, you'll make the runway whether or not
>> the engine keeps running.
>
> Well, that's pretty much what prompted me to ask the question in the
> first place. What exactly is a "proper approach"? I don't see how it's
> possible to fly final with power on a trajectory that puts you on the
> numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

Reduce drag and you'll make it unless you were carrying a lot of power on a
flat approach. Reduce your flap setting.

[vincent p. norris]

> What exactly is a "proper approach"?

Among other things, one that enables you to make the runway if the
engine quits.

> I don't see how it's possible to fly final with power on a trajectory
>that puts you on the numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

So don't use power!

Dan is right; your engine probably won't quit. But some do, because
we read about accidents of that kind.

You can play the odds, or you can play it safe.

vince norris

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:12:28 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>Could it be that I was attempting to point out, that your instance on
>remaining within gliding distance of the runway failed to consider the
>fact that it is often impossible at busy airports? Isn't that
>reasonable?

Sounds reasonable to me. Do the safer thing! Where I fly, that's
generally a close-in pattern and power off abeam the landing spot.

If that causes problems in the pattern, then the safer thing is to fly
a wider pattern at a higher speed.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net