How do you plan the descent in emergency landing practice?

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

Engine off - no vibration - altimeter sticks.

B.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

"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.

"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)?