How do you plan the descent in emergency landing practice?

[Kirk Ellis]

After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
and I can't believe how fast that time went by.

So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,
but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
brings me to the point of this post.

While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes
to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).

Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
elusive endeaveor.

Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?



Kirk
PPL-ASEL

[[email protected]]

On Oct 14, 7:44 pm, Kirk Ellis
> wrote:
> After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
> finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
> and I can't believe how fast that time went by.
>
> So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
> all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
> emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,
> but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
> would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
> brings me to the point of this post.
>
> While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
> get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes
> to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
> Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
> miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).
>
> Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
> right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
> elusive endeaveor.
>
> Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
> aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
> analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

It just takes years of flight time and alot of practice. When flying
you need to consciously analyze everything from the time you untie the
plane till it's tied back down again. Best practice I have found for
spot landings is to visit an out of the way small airport and pick a
spot on the runway and fly the plane right to that spotseveral times,
using both directions if the wind is not too strong will help you
compansate for any drift/ tailwind componant, gusts,etc. The fact that
you asked the question shows your sincere desire for getting it right.
That's a good trait for a pilot.... :-)

Ben

[Kyle Boatright]

"Kirk Ellis" > wrote in message
...
>
> After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
> finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
> and I can't believe how fast that time went by.
>
> So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
> all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
> emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,
> but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
> would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
> brings me to the point of this post.
>
> While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
> get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes
> to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
> Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
> miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).
>
> Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
> right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
> elusive endeaveor.
>
> Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
> aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
> analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?
>
>
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

There is no rule that says you have to fly a rectangular pattern. Vary it a
bit and see how it works.

My solution is to plan things so I'm always high on the base leg. That way,
I can overshoot the base leg, fly S-turns, and perform other energy and
altitude bleeding maneuvers to hit my target landing area.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Oct 14, 9:44 pm, Kirk Ellis
> wrote:
> After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
> finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
> and I can't believe how fast that time went by.
>
> So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
> all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
> emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,
> but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
> would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
> brings me to the point of this post.
>
> While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
> get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes
> to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
> Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
> miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).
>
> Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
> right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
> elusive endeaveor.
>
> Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
> aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
> analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

No it is not a sixth sense. It is the right combination of numbers and
sight picture. Sight picture only helps when you are fairly low (ie
500' AGL) and on final approach. During downwind or base you don't
have a good sight picture to tell whether you are going to be too high
or too low. You have to rely on your altimeter and use several
'target' altitudes until you turn final. I use 1000' for the abeam-
point, 800' for turning base and 600' for turning final. How you get
down to 1000' is completely up to you, but you have to be facing the
right direction at the right altitude. If you are doing 360's to lose
altitude you should know how much altitude is lost in one turn. You
have several tools at your disposal to control altitude such as flaps,
airspeed and slip. On a normal approach (with power on) I aim for
400-500' for turning final. The trick is not to nail everything
precisely, but to learn to identify deviations and make early
corrections so that you don't get too far off track. After turning
final, you do everything based on sight picture. Aim for 1/3 down the
runway, but when you get close and the landing is assured, slip or
flap aggressively to put it down on the numbers.

[[email protected]]

Plan your 1500' point and then you adjust to make your 1000'. By that
point you have a good feel for what the wind and your glide is doing.

Check this out:

www.caa.govt.nz/Publications/ Vector/Vector_2007_Issue-1_Jan-Feb.pdf

And before anyone says it, Kiwis can fly!

Cheers

On Oct 15, 2:44 pm, Kirk Ellis
> wrote:
> After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
> finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
> and I can't believe how fast that time went by.
>
> So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
> all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
> emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,
> but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
> would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
> brings me to the point of this post.
>
> While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
> get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes
> to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
> Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
> miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).
>
> Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
> right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
> elusive endeaveor.
>
> Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
> aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
> analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

[Stefan]

Andrew Sarangan schrieb:

> No it is not a sixth sense. It is the right combination of numbers and
> sight picture. Sight picture only helps when you are fairly low (ie
> 500' AGL) and on final approach. During downwind or base you don't
> have a good sight picture to tell whether you are going to be too high
> or too low. You have to rely on your altimeter and use several
> 'target' altitudes until you turn final.

I disagree. Of course the alitmeter can be very helpful, but only if you
know the ground elevation and if you are sure your current altimeter
setting is correct.

As this is often not the case, think in angles. Angles stay the same
regardless of height and distance.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Kirk Ellis" > wrote in message
...
>
> After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
> finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
> and I can't believe how fast that time went by.
>
> So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
> all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
> emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,
> but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
> would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
> brings me to the point of this post.
>
> While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
> get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes
> to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
> Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
> miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).
>
> Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
> right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
> elusive endeaveor.
>
> Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
> aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
> analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?
>
>
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

To quote an Air Force recruiting poster, "Aim High". It is almost always
easier to get rid of altitude, than to get it back. As someone else said,
aim for 1/3, and slip or flap as necessary to get to the numbers.

From a distance, go to the landing area, and circle. Better to arrive
high and have an opportunity while circling down to really look it over for
obstructions, wires, wind, soft ground etc.

Al G, 7 engine failures on 6 aircraft, no off field
(unscheduled) landings.

[Shirl]

"Al G" > wrote:
> Al G, 7 engine failures on 6 aircraft, no off field
> (unscheduled) landings.

7 engine failures on 6 aircraft ... in how many years? how many hours?
Just wondering because the off-the-cuff attitude expressed here (which,
having had one, I disagree with) is that "the odds are very small" of
having an actual engine failure. Hardly seems that's been the case with
you!

Bottom line is that whether it's none, one or six, small odds don't mean
that it doesn't happen or that you don't have to concern yourself with
being prepared. Even though Kirk says his recent practices have been hit
and miss, he would, by virtue of the fact that he's been *doing them*
and thinking about that process, at least have the drill and how the
airplane reacts to various things fresh in his mind -- in terms of
having some degree of preparedness, isn't that a better place to be in
the event of an actual failure than if you hadn't practiced the drill
since your last BFR (which could be as long as two years ago)?

[Al G[_1_]]

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
> "Al G" > wrote:
>> Al G, 7 engine failures on 6 aircraft, no off field
>> (unscheduled) landings.
>
> 7 engine failures on 6 aircraft ... in how many years? how many hours?
> Just wondering because the off-the-cuff attitude expressed here (which,
> having had one, I disagree with) is that "the odds are very small" of
> having an actual engine failure. Hardly seems that's been the case with
> you!
>
> Bottom line is that whether it's none, one or six, small odds don't mean
> that it doesn't happen or that you don't have to concern yourself with
> being prepared. Even though Kirk says his recent practices have been hit
> and miss, he would, by virtue of the fact that he's been *doing them*
> and thinking about that process, at least have the drill and how the
> airplane reacts to various things fresh in his mind -- in terms of
> having some degree of preparedness, isn't that a better place to be in
> the event of an actual failure than if you hadn't practiced the drill
> since your last BFR (which could be as long as two years ago)?

35 Years, 7000 civilian hrs. Largely CFI & 135.

Mooney 201, induction icing, at night, 30 North of Medford, shot the
ILS.
Aeronca Champ, carburetor icing, left downwind, 2nd in a flight of
two.
C-340, both engines, fuel icing, 100 nm North of Reno, got 1 lit
lower.
C-210, Mechanic induced induction failure, 250' on departure, landed
straight ahead.
Piper Aztec, Mechanic induced engine fire, same mechanic as 210, 50
South of Medford.
C337, Pressurized, Cylinder head blew off the rear engine, on
rotation at Boeing.

6 paved runways, 5 of them had a bar, (extra points).

Obviously Ice has played a major role. To this day I drink beer,
which is served without ice.

Al G CFIAMI 2069297

[brtlmj]

> > or too low. You have to rely on your altimeter and use several
> > 'target' altitudes until you turn final.
> I disagree. Of course the alitmeter can be very helpful, but only if you
> know the ground elevation and if you are sure your current altimeter
> setting is correct.

Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
Glider pilots are taught to ignore altimeter during circuit and
landing.

Bartek

[brtlmj]

> Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
> aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
> analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?

It helps to know the typical field size in your area. Then you could
think "this is my intended touchdown point, I want to be two fields to
a side and three fields behind it, and see it at an angle of, say, 40
degrees".

Mind you, I have never flown power, and I am not exactly experienced
either :-)

Bartek

[Stefan]

brtlmj schrieb:

> Glider pilots are taught to ignore altimeter during circuit and
> landing.

Guess why I suggested the "looks about right" method... ;-)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

brtlmj wrote:

>
> Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.

WHAT?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Knowing your power-off descent rate will help. In my plane, I know that
my power off descent rate at best glide speed is about 50% higher than the
500 ft./min rate that I generally use in a normal pattern. If I arrive at 1,
000 ft. AGL abeam of my landing spot. I know that I'll have to make an
abbreviated pattern to make the runway. I also aim for a spot a several
hundred feet down the landing area to prevent landing short. The sight
picture through the windshield on final will tell you where you're going to
go. If you're overshooting, your landing spot will move down. If you're
coming up short, the landing spot will move up in the windshield. I try to
overshoot slightly as I turn final, then adjust the descent rate with a hard
slip to put it down at the near edge of the landing area.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[brtlmj]

> > Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
> WHAT?

Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.

B.

[Jim Logajan]

brtlmj > wrote:
>> > Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
>> WHAT?
>
> Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.

Yet another failure mode for liquid crystal displays I hadn't known about.
;-)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

brtlmj wrote:
>>> Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
>> WHAT?
>
> Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.
>
> B.

In my one fixed wing engine out that didn't happen. But I could see where it
could.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

>> Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.

> In my one fixed wing engine out that didn't happen. But I could see
> where it could.

A parked altimeter consistently unmoved by overnight weather changes
could be a tip-off.

- FChE

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, brtlmj > wrote:
> > > Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
> > WHAT?
>
> Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.

So what do they do during the IFR cert? Shake the plane around?

-Robert

[brtlmj]

> > Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.
> So what do they do during the IFR cert? Shake the plane around?

I have no idea. As I said, I do not fly power. Is shutting down an
engine (or all engines) in flight required as a part of any
certification?

Bartek

[Al G[_1_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, brtlmj > wrote:
>> > > Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
>> > WHAT?
>>
>> Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.
>
> So what do they do during the IFR cert? Shake the plane around?
>
> -Robert
>
Some of the early jets, like the Lear, came with a little vibrator
attached
to the captains altimeter, for just that purpose.

Al G

[Al G[_1_]]

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
> "Al G" > wrote:
>> Al G, 7 engine failures on 6 aircraft, no off field
>> (unscheduled) landings.
>
> 7 engine failures on 6 aircraft ... in how many years? how many hours?
> Just wondering because the off-the-cuff attitude expressed here (which,
> having had one, I disagree with) is that "the odds are very small" of
> having an actual engine failure. Hardly seems that's been the case with
> you!
>
> Bottom line is that whether it's none, one or six, small odds don't mean
> that it doesn't happen or that you don't have to concern yourself with
> being prepared. Even though Kirk says his recent practices have been hit
> and miss, he would, by virtue of the fact that he's been *doing them*
> and thinking about that process, at least have the drill and how the
> airplane reacts to various things fresh in his mind -- in terms of
> having some degree of preparedness, isn't that a better place to be in
> the event of an actual failure than if you hadn't practiced the drill
> since your last BFR (which could be as long as two years ago)?

It occurs to me after reading my post, that I missed mentioning one of
the more important points.

In an emergency, you will act just like you trained. The things you
practice, you will do automatically when faced with surprise and threat.
Practice closing the throttle a little earlier, a little further out, each
landing. You pick up a terrific feel for the attitude of a good glide. One
of my engine outs was an induction system failure at 250' on departure. The
T210 was climbing smartly with gear in transit about halfway down the
runway(4000'), when the thing just quit like you pulled the throttle to
idle. While I was looking dumbfounded at the MP and RPM, my left hand was
gently pushing over to just the right attitude for the upcoming glide. I
think for a second there I was almost in shock. Nevertheless, I did just
right. You would be amazed at what your brain can do when you've taught it
correctly. One of my students once said, "Luck is where opportunity meets
preparation".

Al G

[Shirl]

"Al G" > wrote:
> It occurs to me after reading my post, that I missed mentioning one of
> the more important points.
>
> In an emergency, you will act just like you trained. The things you
> practice, you will do automatically when faced with surprise and threat.
> Practice closing the throttle a little earlier, a little further out, each
> landing. You pick up a terrific feel for the attitude of a good glide. One
> of my engine outs was an induction system failure at 250' on departure. The
> T210 was climbing smartly with gear in transit about halfway down the
> runway(4000'), when the thing just quit like you pulled the throttle to
> idle. While I was looking dumbfounded at the MP and RPM, my left hand was
> gently pushing over to just the right attitude for the upcoming glide. I
> think for a second there I was almost in shock. Nevertheless, I did just
> right. You would be amazed at what your brain can do when you've taught it
> correctly. One of my students once said, "Luck is where opportunity meets
> preparation".

I agree about what your brain can do when you've taught/programmed it
correctly. But the more time that elapses from whence you last did that
training/programming, the less automatic it becomes. You may still
remember all the items in the drill, but it may take a few extra seconds
to remember them -- in the type of emergencies we're talking about, few
extra seconds may make a huge difference in the outcome. So I think the
key phrase in what you said above is that "the things you *practice*"
will be done automatically. In order to maintain that necessary level of
automatic reaction, it has to be practiced/re-programmed with some
regularity (more often than once every other year).

[Al G[_1_]]

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
> "Al G" > wrote:
>> It occurs to me after reading my post, that I missed mentioning one of
>> the more important points.
>>
>> In an emergency, you will act just like you trained. The things you
>> practice, you will do automatically when faced with surprise and threat.
>> Practice closing the throttle a little earlier, a little further out,
>> each
>> landing. You pick up a terrific feel for the attitude of a good glide.
>> One
>> of my engine outs was an induction system failure at 250' on departure.
>> The
>> T210 was climbing smartly with gear in transit about halfway down the
>> runway(4000'), when the thing just quit like you pulled the throttle to
>> idle. While I was looking dumbfounded at the MP and RPM, my left hand was
>> gently pushing over to just the right attitude for the upcoming glide. I
>> think for a second there I was almost in shock. Nevertheless, I did just
>> right. You would be amazed at what your brain can do when you've taught
>> it
>> correctly. One of my students once said, "Luck is where opportunity meets
>> preparation".
>
> I agree about what your brain can do when you've taught/programmed it
> correctly. But the more time that elapses from whence you last did that
> training/programming, the less automatic it becomes. You may still
> remember all the items in the drill, but it may take a few extra seconds
> to remember them -- in the type of emergencies we're talking about, few
> extra seconds may make a huge difference in the outcome. So I think the
> key phrase in what you said above is that "the things you *practice*"
> will be done automatically. In order to maintain that necessary level of
> automatic reaction, it has to be practiced/re-programmed with some
> regularity (more often than once every other year).

Absolutely.

Al G

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:31:04 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote:

> Knowing your power-off descent rate will help.

This whole discussion sounds like an argument against power-on
approaches.

I was taught power-on by a former military pilot. Then he went off to
the airlines and my new, older, civilian-trained pilot instructed me
to go throttle all the way back at the numbers, then fly the rest of
the pattern without any more power than it took to "clear" the engine
from time to time.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[EridanMan]

Great advice.

The other thing I'll do is on longer, empty runways, I'll practice hot
approaches and extended flares - that is, coming over the fence fast
(100+ knots in a PA-28-140) and clean, chopping the power, and then
establishing and holding my flare, deploying flaps, and holding it to
a full-stall touchdown.

With power off landings, flexibility is life. The wider the range of
speeds your comfortable safely getting the plane down on the ground
during approach, the more options you have when it comes time to make
the choice to dive for the runway or do another 360. (assuming a long
enough runway). (yes, this is easier with "dirty" planes like my
piper, but widening your personal envelope of approach speeds in any
aircraft isn't necessarily a bad thing to do if you want options in an
emergency, no matter what the aircraft).




On Oct 14, 7:24 pm, " > wrote:
> On Oct 14, 7:44 pm, Kirk Ellis
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
> > finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
> > and I can't believe how fast that time went by.
>
> > So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
> > all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
> > emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,
> > but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
> > would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
> > brings me to the point of this post.
>
> > While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
> > get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes
> > to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
> > Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
> > miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).
>
> > Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
> > right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
> > elusive endeaveor.
>
> > Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
> > aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
> > analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?
>
> > Kirk
> > PPL-ASEL
>
> It just takes years of flight time and alot of practice. When flying
> you need to consciously analyze everything from the time you untie the
> plane till it's tied back down again. Best practice I have found for
> spot landings is to visit an out of the way small airport and pick a
> spot on the runway and fly the plane right to that spotseveral times,
> using both directions if the wind is not too strong will help you
> compansate for any drift/ tailwind componant, gusts,etc. The fact that
> you asked the question shows your sincere desire for getting it right.
> That's a good trait for a pilot.... :-)
>
> Ben

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Oct 15, 6:16 am, Stefan > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan schrieb:
>
> > No it is not a sixth sense. It is the right combination of numbers and
> > sight picture. Sight picture only helps when you are fairly low (ie
> > 500' AGL) and on final approach. During downwind or base you don't
> > have a good sight picture to tell whether you are going to be too high
> > or too low. You have to rely on your altimeter and use several
> > 'target' altitudes until you turn final.
>
> I disagree. Of course the alitmeter can be very helpful, but only if you
> know the ground elevation and if you are sure your current altimeter
> setting is correct.
>
> As this is often not the case, think in angles. Angles stay the same
> regardless of height and distance.

I have to disagree. Altimeter errors are pretty minor compared to
visual errors. Even if you never changed the altimeter setting since
takeoff, you can't be more than a few tens of feet off unless you are
flying through some huge weather system, or are a long way off from
home. Unless you are in hilly terrain, ground elevation is only a
quick glance away from a sectional chart. If you are doing the landing
at an airport, then you know exactly what the elevation is.

It is true that angles stays the same regardless of height and
distance, but that only applies for a straight line. When you are on
downwind or base you are only guessing what your approach angle might
be. You are relying heavily on how high it "feels" and how far it
"feels", and how that might transpire into a good approach angle after
you turn final. Once you are on final, your argument is correct that
you should be able to do everything by the visual angle. But by that
time it is too late to make large changes, only minor changes. This is
the reason many pilots find practice engine outs to have inconsistent
results. If you set target altitude for different positions prior to
reaching final, the consistency significantly improves. I've been
teaching this way and I rarely had a student fail to make a runway on
a practice power-off approaches.

Someone else mentioned a sticking altimeter when the engine is not
running. I never had a real engine failure so I can't disagree with
that, but every airplane I have flown in shows an altitude changes
with daily pressure changes even when it is parked in the hanger. The
vibrations in a parked airplane must be much smaller than one that is
airborne, with or without an engine.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:57:30 -0700, brtlmj > wrote:

>> > Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
>> WHAT?
>
>Engine off -> no vibration -> altimeter sticks.
>
If the altimeter is in poor enough shape it needs vibration to move
the pointer it should have been replaced long ago. The one in the Deb
is original (1959) and it still works fine.

Roger (K8RI)

>B.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:24:49 -0700, "
> wrote:

>On Oct 14, 7:44 pm, Kirk Ellis
> wrote:
>> After dealing with the doctors and the FAA for the last six months I
>> finally got my class 3 renewed. It's been a year since I last flew.
>> and I can't believe how fast that time went by.

This is all I can find of the original post so I'll start from here.
I can relate what I was taught and it has served me well.

>>
>> So this month I am getting back into the cockpit and in addition to
>> all of the standard maneuvers, I feel I especially need to work on
>> emergency off-field landings. I've had my ticket for over 8 years,

Here we have to discern between the need to land off field and an
emergency descent to get down as fast as possible and stay alive. I'm
assuming you are referring to a power off, off field landing and not
the cockpit fire, get this thing down NOW!

>> but financial concerns always seem to keep me from flying as much as I
>> would like. So I do not get to practice as much as I should. Which
>> brings me to the point of this post.
>>
>> While doing emergency off-field landing practice I am still trying to
>> get some consistency in planning the descents from different altitudes

As Ben stated below, it takes practice and getting to know your plane
very well. Much depends on the height of the engine failure, or
emergency. Having plenty of altitude and time to consciously make
decisions is quite different from close to the ground where your
subconscious and ingrained training can save your life.

I've mentioned it before and so did some one in this thread; with an
engine failure on departure, my hands were taking care of lowering the
nose, and flaps while I was looking over the situation. Basically by
the time I could think it out I had already done what I needed to do.
Lower the nose, evaluate landing options, go full flaps, fuel valve
shut off, switches off, and I was on roll out.

>> to be at 1000' agl heading downwind and abeam the touchdown point.
>> Seems like most of the time I was doing them last year, it was hit or
>> miss. (perhaps a poor choice of words).

Nah, sounds appropriate.

>>
>> Trying to put all the variables together to put the aircraft in the
>> right place at the right time on a consistent basis is still an
>> elusive endeaveor.
>>
>> Do you experienced pilots just have a sixth sense about how to get the
>> aircraft exactly where it needs to be? Is it something you consciously
>> analyze throughout the descent or just instinctlvely do?

I'd certainly not call it a sixth sense. The term, experienced does
imply traits ingrained by...experience/practice, not some paranormal
sense.. When I took pilot proficiency training, we'd end up with AT
LEAST 3 simulated engine failures per flight. Best glide, pick a spot,
evaluate the situation and try for a restart if possible. Two full
days of intensive flying and at least one day with 10 hours of class
room. Ingrained a lot of habits.

One of the things emphasized was not to keep changing your mind after
picking a spot. Of course it's possible you discover that green field
is corn and the one a little ways over is bare, or possibly the bare
field is freshly plowed. From high up you have time to think and make
decisions. Oft times there is a tendency to over think and thus get
into trouble.

>>
>> Kirk
>> PPL-ASEL
>
>It just takes years of flight time and alot of practice. When flying
>you need to consciously analyze everything from the time you untie the
>plane till it's tied back down again. Best practice I have found for
>spot landings is to visit an out of the way small airport and pick a
>spot on the runway and fly the plane right to that spotseveral times,

I tend to spiral down keeping close in, always keeping the landing
site in view, and using slips where necessary. FULL flaps once the
landing spot is made.

I had this on a flight review immediately after some hood work. Hoods
off, your engine quit, find a place to land. We were at 4000, it was 5
miles to the airport, airport elevation is 630 MSL, best glide is 120
at roughly 600 fpm. I chose the airport and had to slip aggressively
to make the runway. Actually I put it down and stopped within 900 feet
of the touchdown end of the runway.

>using both directions if the wind is not too strong will help you
>compansate for any drift/ tailwind componant, gusts,etc. The fact that
>you asked the question shows your sincere desire for getting it right.
>That's a good trait for a pilot.... :-)
>

I think he's off to a good start.

Roger (K8RI)
>Ben

[brtlmj]

> It is true that angles stays the same regardless of height and
> distance, but that only applies for a straight line. When you are on
> downwind or base you are only guessing what your approach angle might
> be. You are relying heavily on how high it "feels" and how far it
> "feels", and how that might transpire into a good approach angle after
> you turn final.

....and it certainly seems to work just fine. I had to demonstrate
flying and landing without an altimeter before they let me fly solo...

> that, but every airplane I have flown in shows an altitude changes
> with daily pressure changes even when it is parked in the hanger.

Let me clarify. An altimeter does not stick to some value and stay
there until someone shakes it. It will move - when the pressure
difference overcomes friction. Consequently, when descending, it will
always indicate that you are a bit higher than you really are.
What is the maximum error here? It obviously depends on the altimeter
in question. I do not think I have ever seen more than 50 feet.

Bartek

[Stefan]

Andrew Sarangan schrieb:

> When you are on
> downwind or base you are only guessing what your approach angle might
> be. You are relying heavily on how high it "feels" and how far it
> "feels",

I couldn't disagree more. You don't have to guess neither altitude nor
distance, because the angle at which you see the runway (or rather the
landing field) remains the same. You know at which angle you should see
the runway when you are on downwind, and if your downwind happens to be
nearer or farther, then just keep that same angle and your altitude will
authomatically adjust.

But if you rely on the altimeter, even if you happen to know the field
elevation, you have to know your distance to make the approach work. No
problem at your home base, where you know exactly where you are, but a
big problem with off field landings. And if you happen to have to make
an unusual approach, for whatever reason, your just plain lost if you're
relying on the altimeter.

You may have tought your method for years, but have you taught them with
true simulated outlandings, away from arfields, in unkonwn countryside,
where the student doesn't conveniently know the turn to base and where
the field elevation is a couple of hundred feet off from your departure
point? (I can see you chop the power at 2000 ft AGL and then tell the
student to grab the map and calculate the target altitude...)

I have dozens of true outlandings under my belt and it never even
occured to me to glance at the altimeter. It's outside the cockpit where
the things happen. Granted, the outlandings were in gliders, where you
have much better control over your glide path. Still, power pilots tend
to rely far too much on the gauges.

[Brian[_1_]]

On Oct 15, 1:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> brtlmj wrote:
>
> > Correct. Additionally, altimeter will tend to stick with engine off.
>
> WHAT?

When I purchased my glider it had a button on the stick that would run
a motor with and off ballance weight on it next to the the Altimeter.
It's purpose was to shake the altimeter so it would give an acurate
reading. Most Power aircraft have a built in altimeter shaker called
an engine.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
HP16T N16VP

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:13:49 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

> You are relying heavily on how high it "feels" and how far it
>"feels", and how that might transpire into a good approach angle after
>you turn final. Once you are on final, your argument is correct that
>you should be able to do everything by the visual angle.

I had a good demonstration of this a few days ago. I was returning to
the airport from the south and decided that I wasn't going to bother
going off to find the 45 when Runway 02 was staring right at me, so I
cut the power and trimmed for 60 mph, only to realize as time went on
that I was sinking below the desired glide angle. I had to go to 1200
rpm to make the runway. If the engine had been out, I would have been
sorely embarrassed.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Angelo Campanella[_2_]]

Cubdriver wrote:
> I had a good demonstration of this a few days ago. I was returning to
> the airport from the south and decided that I wasn't going to bother
> going off to find the 45 when Runway 02 was staring right at me, so I
> cut the power and trimmed for 60 mph, only to realize as time went on
> that I was sinking below the desired glide angle. I had to go to 1200
> rpm to make the runway.

As a finesse for advanced piloting, consider not only the wind ut the
wind "gradient". Generaly, as you descend facing a headwind, thewind
speed diminished as you approach ground level. typically, here n Ohio
(flatland with trees) when crossing through 100 ft off the ground, you
can plan on the wind loosing ha;f its value. in a 20 knot headwind at
pattern altitude, when you craoss below 100 ft, expect a relatively
quick loss of up to 10 knots airspeed. It may not always be a sharp
change, but a gradual one. As the wind speed experineced dimiishes, your
airspeed likely drops, followed by an increased sink rate that can only
be made up with some power as you experineced.

If the engine had been out, I would have been
> sorely embarrassed.

That's what makes forced landings interesting. It also shows why flaps
and/or slipping is a requisite talent for private pilots.

Slips are two sort; foorward and side. 'Forward' means that you want to
maintain the original path over the ground, as for loosing altitude on
final. 'Side' means that you keep the heading constant while you loose
altitude, as when you are corrcting back to course after a crosswind
drift on final.

It is often said that one should not slip with flaps. The danger is
only in being too slow while cross-controlling (needed for slips) with
flaps extended. The cure is to carry 10-20 knots extra airspeed (viz 80
mph rather that 60 mph) in the descent, the risk of a cross-controlled
stall, even aggravated by crossed controls is minimal to nil. Keep the
nose down (accompanies the higher speed); if it ballons, the stall follws.

Another factor is for older Cessnas that have only one static port
forward of the left cabin, the airspeed indicator will indicate low in a
slip to the left, and high for a slip to the right. Thus, "10 extra
knots for grandma" applies for safety in slipping if you can't sort out
which is which on the fly.

Angelo Campanella

[Dave[_5_]]

Did you shoot the mechanic after the second forced landing he caused?
(just being facetious, but I'll bet you and he parted ways after that)

Had a friend who "almost" had a cylinder blow apart on a Skymaster. It
was cracked about 3/4 the way around. Happened on a flight of young
eagles.
It was also the rear engine. He detected a bit of vibration and
returned to the airport.

David Johnson

[Al G[_1_]]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Did you shoot the mechanic after the second forced landing he caused?
> (just being facetious, but I'll bet you and he parted ways after that)
>
> Had a friend who "almost" had a cylinder blow apart on a Skymaster. It
> was cracked about 3/4 the way around. Happened on a flight of young
> eagles.
> It was also the rear engine. He detected a bit of vibration and
> returned to the airport.
>
> David Johnson
>

As a matter of fact, two years after the second mechanic related
failure, I was flying a 414 for a Fruit Company when they hired a new
mechanic. You guessed it. I quit. Two times was enough.

Al G