Engine failure on final

Dan

Let me use your posting to hang some data on )

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Recently, unicate 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

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

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?