Engine Out Landing. Big Deal?

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


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

Scott

On Mar 25, 11:26*am, Tony wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:15*pm, "vaughn" wrote:

"soartech" wrote in message

....

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

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

Vaughn

this.

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

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

Originally Posted by toad

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

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

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

Walt

On Mar 25, 1:48*pm, toad wrote:
Yes, a 500 ft engine out on takeoff in a light plane is more like a
125 ft rope break. *Now do a 180 turn around to land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy

On 3/26/2011 10:41 AM, Andy wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:48 pm, wrote:
Yes, a 500 ft engine out on takeoff in a light plane is more like a
125 ft rope break. Now do a 180 turn around to land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy

Andy's hands-on experience supports a (several, actually) thought(s) the
skeptical engineer in me has mulled ever since gaining sufficient experience
and knowledge to be able to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaughn

On Mar 26, 12:13*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in ... wrote:

.

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

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

Vaughn

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

On Mar 26, 1:13*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in ... wrote:

.

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

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

Vaughn

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

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

At 21:42 26 March 2011, n7ly wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:13=A0pm, "vaughn" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in messagenews:45b8c464-c350-4983-be8=
... wrote:

.

I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for
engine
failure had the priorities wrong. =A0Power pilots are taught to set
best
glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going
away
from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.

=A0.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius
increa=
ses with
the square of airspeed! =A0An amazing number of power pilots (and even
so=
me glider
pilots) don't know that. =A0Both the bank angle and the airspeed of
that
=
turn are
vitally important.

Vaughn

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

On Mar 26, 8:30*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:
Oh, I thought someone mentioned it in passing. *Always turn into wind.

At 21:42 26 March 2011, n7ly wrote:

On Mar 26, 1:13=A0pm, "vaughn" *wrote:
"Andy" *wrote in messagenews:45b8c464-c350-4983-be8=
... wrote:

.

I have maintained for a long time that power pilot training for
engine
failure had the priorities wrong. =A0Power pilots are taught to set
best
glide speed first. All this does is waste time and altitude going
away
from the landing place if a turn back is the only option.

=A0.When teaching this stuff, remember to mention that turn radius
increa=
ses with
the square of airspeed! =A0An amazing number of power pilots (and even
so=
me glider
pilots) don't know that. =A0Both the bank angle and the airspeed of
that
=
turn are
vitally important.

Vaughn

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

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

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

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