Engine quits - what approach speed

[Yorks.ppl]

We are taught that the lowest safe approach and landing speed is best so as to minimise impact speed on landing but....

This morning as I was driving along in the country, I noticed a field that was long and flat and was just thinking what a good field for a forced landing it was when I noticed telephone wires across the approach.

So my question is this, imagine you have chosen said field to land but failed to spot the wires untill you are commited, the natural response is going to be to pull up to avoid the wires, but at normal approach speed the chances of stalling are significant (without engine power to maintain speed) with disasterous concequences.
Would it be sensible to fly a faster approach to give the opportunity to climb briefly if needed without the risk of stalling.

For all you pedants out there, I realise that in your perfect worlds I should have spotted the wires from 3000 feet and chosen another field, just thought I would say it and save you the trouble;)

[Mike Cross]

If you'd remembered what you were taught you would never find yourself in the position in the first place because you would be aiming for a point one third of the way into the field and therefore be well above them. Far better to run into the far hedge at walking pace than into the near one at stalling speed.

[Yorks.ppl]

I was hoping to avoid pedantic and pointless replies but it seems that is not possible, obviously if the wires were beneath the aircraft there would not be a problem but they are right where you want to fly, not somewhere else, not at the end of the field, they are on your approach one third of the way into the field.

[Sans Anoraque]

Yorks - there's nothing pedantic or pointless about Mike Cross' reply.

If you're talking about telephone poles strung 1/3 of the way across the field, then yes you should have spotted them a long time ago. (They look just like trees, but without the leaves).

If you try to fly over them at that stage in your approach. You. Will. Die.

[bar shaker]

If this thread is not a wind up/troll exercise then it is of huge concern.

No one expects you to see wires from 3,000ft, but you are expected to seem them from your downwind point, at 800ft-1000ft.

What were you actually taught to do?

[Yorks.ppl]

If you try to fly over them at that stage in your approach. You. Will. Die.

Quite possibly which is exactly my point, I will die because I dont have suficient airspeed to get over them. with perhaps a little more speed I may fly over and land safely.

No one expects you to see wires from 3,000ft, but you are expected to seem them from your downwind point, at 800ft-1000ft.

Yes I know but suppose.... just suppose I didn't,

What were you actually taught to do?

Same as you and everyone else, but it seems sensible to discuss every posibility.

If this thread is not a wind up/troll exercise then it is of huge concern.

Why:confused:

[Farmer 1]

WhyIf you need to ask the question, you will probably not understand the answer.

[foxmoth]

If you have got the approach right you have two options:
1. Fly under the wires and land slightly fast If you were aiming well into the field and they were say 2/3 down this should be no problem, especially if you use a bit of sideslip once you have seen the wires.
2. raising the nose slightly might get you over them, if you are at best glide speed then you do have a bit of margin before the stall and if you were just going to clip the top of the wires you could get over them, then get the nose back down and be ready to round out in a hurry.
Personally I would prefer 1., only resorting to 2. if I had cocked up the approach and the wires were over the near hedge with trees or something obstructing the gap between wires and ground.

[Sans Anoraque]

Yorks,

If you have to perform an emergency landing in real life, I imagine that you will be crapping yourself, your blood will be one half adrenaline and everything you think you know will go flying out of your head. So the most important thing is to K.I.S.S.

Fly the plane, keep your airspeed at the proper setting for that stage of approach and remember 2 things:

1) If you land into wind and under control, you will almost certainly survive.
2) The biggest danger to your lifespan is performing manouveres like the one you're suggesting. That is what kills people when they screw up an emergency landing.

Keep up the PFLs and listen to your instructor.

[Yorks.ppl]

If you need to ask the question, you will probably not understand the answer.

Farmer 1The fact that you offer no answer says everything about you.

Foxmouth, thanks for the first reasoned answer. so in scenario 2 a little more speed might help avoid the stall, possibly.

The biggest danger to your lifespan is performing manouveres like the one you\'re suggesting. That is what kills people when they screw up an emergency landing.

Wouldnt hitting the wires be worse though? surely I would be better to fly over the wires (with my extra bit of airspeed at my disposal) and then land than to fly through them. Are you really suggesting it is better to set up a standard approach and fly it regardless of whats in the way?

[robin]

Forgive me for asking this, but if you are only talking about telephone wires, surely you won't have the option of flying under them.

In this neck of the woods they are only about 15' above the deck, and with catenary between the posts, that'll reduce to 10-12'. Take off the height of the hedges/fences of 6' and you'd have to limbo dance through them.

As said earlier, the proper approach looks to aim 1/3 into the field so you should have sufficient height to clear the obstruction and land safely. If not, it was probably the wrong field to start with.

[DubTrub]

If you are committed to land, then land! Doesn't matter if you hit the wires if there's nothing that can be done about it. As someone famous once said, fly it all the way in to the crash.

If indeed the wires are 1/3 into the field, than land under them if possible.



[on a pedantic note, yorks, be careful not to alienate yourself amongst well respected and knowledgeable people on this forum]

[Mike Cross]

I noticed a field that was long and flat and was just thinking what a good field for a forced landing it was when I noticed telephone wires across the approach.
If you meant to say the wires were across the field rather than across the approach to the field you should have said so. I wasn't being pointless or pedantic. Telephone wires are generally around 20ft up so if your aiming point were one third of the way into the field you would be well above them if they were on the approach and not actually in the field.

Your idea of a faster approach is not IMHO a good one. The handling and control responses will not be what you are used to in the approach phase and the visual cues will all be skewed. You'll also have the problem of getting rid of the excess speed when you are already high as a result of the aiming point being where it is.

It's also not a good idea to work on the premise that the wires are going to be in a particular position. Murphy's law will dictate that they automatically move to the most awkward position for whatever approach profile you have decided on. Trying to outguess Murphy is pointless, he always wins.

On a more general point, the ground round poles or pylons is often significantly different to the rest of the field surface because crops cannot be sown or cut right up to them which makes them easier to spot.

[dublinpilot]

Fox,

Don't mind them.

There is nothing wrong with asking a question. Better to ask it now, and think about it now, then when your engine quits.

Anyone who thinks that they will do everything perfect in a PFL is a fool. Someone once said to me, that on every flight you make, you will make at least one mistake. The danger does not come from the mistake itself, but in developing an attitude where you no longer recognise the mistakes.

If you can make mistakes on flights where everything goes well, then I'm sure you can make mistakes too when the engine quits and your under extreme pressure!

Sure you should see the wires before you get there. But what about the case where you pick a field, set up for it, then notice some fence running through it, and are forced to change your field? You don't zoom back to 2000ft, and start all over again! You'll do the best you can with the time you have, and that may mean you'll miss seeing the wires until late.

So don't mind anyone who criticise you for asking a question. Knowledge comes from asking a question.

Now to the question.

I would say, that it's not such a good thing carrying in extra speed, just for eventualities. Carry in the amount of speed you were thought.

Then if you are faced with wires in the wrong position when it's too late to change field (or direction across the field), there are only 3 possibilities.

1. Go over them.
2. Go through them.
3. Go under them.

1. is only an option if you have A) sufficient speed & B) sufficient field the far side of the wires.
2. Never really an option.
3. this would be my choice. I would be inclined to force it down, even though this may mean extra damage to the aircraft such as nose wheel collapse. At least your 'crash' will happen from 1 ft above the ground, instead of 30ft. While you probably will hit the wire, it should at least only be the tail that hits it, and not the cabin.

At the end of the day, it's about minimising the risk. Stalling from 30 feet is never going to be a good thing, and neither is hitting the wires while flying....particularly if they hit the cabin.

As for carrying extra speed, just in case you see wires at the last minutes, I would suggest the extra speed it likely to cause you more problems, than the possibility of having missed the wires in your inspection.

dp

[Yorks.ppl]

Thanks Dublinpilot, well put.



If you meant to say the wires were across the field rather than across the approach to the field you should have said so.

At what point would you say the approach ended? Is not part of the approach over the field or does it stop at the field boundary?

I was not trying to out guess murphy, or change the way poeple fly, or the way I fly, or suggest that the accepted way is wrong, I just asked a question of people who until today I had a great deal of respect for.

[on a pedantic note, yorks, be careful not to alienate yourself amongst well respected and knowledgeable people on this forum]

Not sure who you are refering to but I dont give a fig if I am alienated from people who are simply rude and offensive, or those who are supersillious and dismisive simply because I had a question to ask.

[mazzy1026]

Having read this, it actually got me thinking, what if you hit the cables?

Perhaps a stupid question I know - but what are the possible outcomes? They could simply snap or come away at their ends, and not get in your way. Or, they could get wrapped around something, maybe the spinner, or more likely the tail? If you fly a 'T' tail aircraft, then this could cause more problems I would imagine........

Just some thoughts ;)

[High Wing Drifter]

Mazzy,

Not sure if it is stupid question. I was told to fly straight through wooden pole cables if I wasn't certain I would live trying to avoid them. Basically, I was told they would just snap. Although, to be frank, I'm not sure I buy that. But, if it was a choice of stalling or hitting, hitting would, I'm sure, hurt less.

[Yorks.ppl]

Mazzy, I have often wondered about wires too, if you drove through a telephone wire in a car you wouldn't feel anything, but we are told to avoid them like the plague so that suggests they are very dangerous, hence the question about flying over them.

[mazzy1026]

Yeah, my immediate thoughts are that a chunk of metal/wood/plastic going through a thin cable in the region of 70Mph would have no problem in destroying it, but that's just a naive guess! Again, it would depend on where the cables came into contact with the aircraft - for example if hitting the undercarriage, this could result in a forward jerk.

Actually - this reminds me of an accident that occurred (think it was in the states) when a light aircraft became entangled in power cables (I think) and it was left hanging up-side-down for some time. I haven't found any web link to this yet.......

[Mike Cross]

Yorks.ppl

Since you seem to have a problem with my answers to your question I'll bow out of this discussion.

[justinmg]

A reasonable question I think.

Priority 1 wings level & under control

Firstly hitting the cables : they might just snap if you hit them at the right angle, but likely to change your angle of attack to something you cant predict, and would not want anyway. A smallish force at the front or back could do this. It all depends on where on the airframe you hit, and at what angle, but no way would I think about going through......

Priority 2 Slow as possible.

I would go below the wires. By pointing the nose down you would increase the airspeed, and controlability. If fully flapped, this is one of the most efficient ways of getting rid of excess energy. It is likely that you would have slowed significantly by the time you decide to let the mains touch.
This can be practiced if next time you try a glide approach, come in higher than usual. Put in full flap, and point the nose down. The airspeed does not jump through the roof, and what you pick up bleeds off quickly once going into the flair.

My 2p worth

Questions and discussion are good.

[Yorks.ppl]

Actually, I was just thinking, I was clearing out behind one of our barns the other week and amongst the rubish and soil was a tangled bundle of telephone wire, it wraped itself around the tractor wheels and bucket and as I reversed out it streched to enormous lengths before snaping, it is very tenacious stuff! ( I had forgoten all about that )

[Sans Anoraque]

HWD,

I'm not sure your average spam can would snap a telegraph pole in two. I think a head on would probably involve the engine block being pushed back through your stomach!

Sorry HWD, after reading your post again - you did say cables!

Yorkshire,

1) Trying to fly under them - snap off your tail and plunge head first into the ground.
2) Fly into them - break your prop - be sent spinning into the ground.
3) Pull up over them - now you're at 100 feet in a nose up attitude with your airspeed gone to sh1t. Spiral into the ground.
but we are told to avoid them like the plague so that suggests they are very dangerous Durr, do you think?

PS Listen to Dublinpilot, your answers are aggressive and while you may not 'give a fig', people will soon start to ignore your questions. And you can't ask your whippets can you?

[High Wing Drifter]

Sans,

Not the pole, the wire! If the wire needs to be supported by metal structure don't even consider it. Not my advice before anybody else opens up with 20mm :uhoh: :O

Who knows?

[Yorks.ppl]

sorry Sans Anoraque,
Durr, do you think? And you can't ask your whippets can you?

I am really not interested in your opinion, sensible and polite answers only. I think your quotes above speak volumes.

[Sedbergh]

Hi guys

I fly them nasty glider things, so I've been in a few fields over the years.

Points to note:-

a) You'll never see the wires themselves until it's too late, it's the poles you may be able to see.

b) From overhead, if the poles are out in the field you may get crop marks around them as a clue

c) If they're embedded in the hedge, especially if there are trees around as well, you may well not see the poles either.

d) If there is a road next to the hedge, the chances are there will be wires as well.

e) That's why not leaving it too late and flying some kind of a circuit round the field to assess slope, surface, stock and obstructions can keep you alive.

f) It's better to climb out of the wreckage at the far end of the field than to be dug out of it at the approach end (no I've not done either!)

g) Hitting wires while still airborne is right out

h) Hitting fence wires on the ground run is right out (if you're in a glider)

So don't plan on just scraping over that nice low hedge, give it 15 feet more (if you can)!

[c-bert]

Forgive me but the answer to this question seems rather obvious. Best glide speed is so called because it maximises the distance flown. No amount of climbing/decending accelerating or decellerating is going to extend your range and hence enable you to clear the wires (wherever they may be).

ANY variation from best glide speed will shorten the distance travelled. Full stop.

[Yorks.ppl]

c-bert, I agree with the principles of what you say but you could set up your whole forced landing based upon the poorer performance of a higher speed, if you then found the wires in your way perhaps you could safely fly over them by climbing 10 ft, using the exces airspeed.

[High Wing Drifter]

c-bert,

Actually, for many aircraft, your best glide range doesn't really change if you increase/decrease the best glide speed by 5kts or so (depending in type). If you increase the your glide speed slightly, then not only will you be covering just about the same amount of ground, but also you may be able to afford a little nose up as you exchange that extra 5-10kts for a little height with little net deficit.

Another wee factor to consider is that on final, you will hopefully be into wind, increasing your glide speed again gets you a little more distance. For an extreme example just to make the point, imagine a 65kt best glide speed and a 65kt headwind.

[foxmoth]

so in scenario 2 a little more speed might help avoid the stall, possibly.

Yes that might be the case, but you should not IMHO fly your aproach like this and it is not what I was suggesting, In a Pa28 Warrior for example (With notes I have to hand) the best glide is 73kts with a threshold of 70 but the stall is only 44kts full flap so you could comfortably pull up to 60 kts or less and still have an adequate margin. If you fly your approach fast based on the fact that there might be wires you are more likely to cock the approach up in the first place. Also, most people seem to agree with my point of go under the wires rather than over, in which case a high speed is again going to give more problems rather than less.:ouch:

[DubTrub]

Would it be fair to ask (without setting Yorks off on another rant :} )at what time a pilot starts to reduce from best glide speed to a more suitable touch-down speed? Would such a time be some distance before said wires, and therefore there may be the possibility that in fact there is no excess speed available to hop over the wires?

[foxmoth]

Personally, if I was stuck with this as a final option I would wait until the last minute then pull up, get over the wires and then stick the nose straight down again.:mad:

[robin]

Foxmoth

As regards going under the wires, it would depend surely.

In the case of wires being some distance into the field, that may well be possible, but my reading of the description was that the wires were somewhere on the approach (ie at the hedge-line or preceding field)

Assuming there was actually room to do so, to get under telephone wires your wheels (well, mine actually) would be on the ground, which would mean embedding myself in the undershoot field or the hedge at around 65kts.

If you are really on the ball, (and in this situation who would be) you could (just) convert speed to height and back again to clear the wires.

In reality, I think this is fairly academic. You wouldn't want to scrape so low into a field that a 10-15' obstruction would mess it up. And if you were caught out, well, you do what you can.

I've seen pictures of Cessna's caught up in telephone and low-voltage electricity cables and held off the ground.

[foxmoth]

Robin
If you read my previous posts I think you will find I have said pretty much what you are saying, the earlier suggestions was that it was a "normal" PFL with wires in the way in which case you are landing well into the field and the wires would not be a problem and you could either go over them or, if they were further into the field land under. It was then that it was talked about landing over the hedge in which case I said much as you have - read the earlier posts before you comment!:rolleyes:

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Yorks said
Would it be sensible to fly a faster approach to give the opportunity to climb briefly if needed without the risk of stalling.


Not all forced landings are like landing a glider, things can go horribly wrong very quickly and what Yorks has said above is the rule I applied when my engine went bang:{ and it is because of this I won the CAA Safety Award and none of my passengers or people on the ground were hurt.

When faced with visibility down to a minimum due to oil on the windshield and smoke in the cabin you cannot judge what the picture is going to be like on your final approach. So increasing the glide speed can allow you to trade speed for height in the last moments, it gave me the option to pull up avoiding people on the beach and option two had I needed to land in the sea.

Every forced landing is different and should in my opinion be treated so.:ok:

[foxmoth]

When faced with visibility down to a minimum due to oil on the windshield and smoke in the cabin you cannot judge what the picture is going to be like on your final approach.
Given that I think I would agree, but that was not the scenario given. In your situation I would aim to fly as much of a curved approach as possible and use sideslip to get as much viz as I could - but as you say this needs playing by ear as may any emergency situation, we can only train for the standard ones and hope this gives us enough background to deal with the non standard.:uhoh:

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Fox

agree 100% standard procedures are extremely important in training. I was just adding a bit of reality into the scenario in that the idea of a PFL is very different to the actual. :ok:

[High Wing Drifter]

cblinton,

The Mooney out of Shoreham? Quite a feat of flying if may be so bold :ok: I feel a bit of a fraud in this discussion.

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

High Wing

V Tail Bonanza out of Shoreham, thank you for your praise:ok:

:O

[Lister Noble]

Years ago we used to have some farm crops sprayed and fertilised using aerial application via a Pawnee,which carried 500kgs of chemical.
The pilot was either South African or Rhodesian,and around 50 years old.
When I asked about the fatality rate he told when you get to his age you are past all the fatalities!
He flew under all the cables,and had a cutter bar thing in front of the cockpit in case he hit anything.
In fact he hit some power cables on another local farm,and put the whole area out for a while but he survived.
When he was applying stuff in small areas I had to mark for him by standing under his path with a flag.
He used to go over me at around 10-15 feet,I thought it was great but was a lot younger then!
Imagine what the health and safety bods would say about that today?
He also told me although it was a single seater he had taken the occassional passenger, if they were very pretty.
I smiled my best smile, but no such luck.
Lister
:D :D :D

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

Sedbergh - you said:

"e) That's why not leaving it too late and flying some kind of a circuit round the field to assess slope, surface, stock and obstructions can keep you alive."

For your average GA pilot who flogs around at between 2,000 and 3,000 feet on a QNH setting, how many of those pilots will have sufficient altitude after they have found a field to fly "some kind of a circuit" without power before they perform the forced landing?

York.ppl - in some situations, there are no options. You could develop your question by saying "ah yes, but under the wires is my tractor.......and if you carry too much speed into the field, there is this nasty ditch you also failed to see..."

The rule is: fly the aeroplane. If the way ahead is blocked, look to your left and right - you might find a much shorter field into which you can land but will probably run into the hedge at the end. However, it might just happen you end up with nowhere to turn. Sadly it happens.

[booke23]

My preferance would be to go under the wires.

I was faced with the above situation a few weeks ago while carring out a PFL. Didn't spot the wires 'till about 150ft .........was aiming one third into the said field and the wires were about 3/4 of the way into the field.

I could have easily landed and passed under the wires.....needless to say I went around straight away.

I think to glide at a faster speed as a rule could get you into trouble.

If you manage to arrive in your chosen field at the aim point a third in with an extra 10 knots or so, then in something like a PA 28, you can expect to float down the rest of the field all the way to the scene of the accident in the hedge row. How severe the accident is will depend on the nature of the hedge, but could be very serious if there are a some trees to collide with.

Remember every 5kts of speed you manage to get rid off, significantly reduces ground run after landing.

[Yorks.ppl]

Thanks for the replies everyone, sorry for ranting at the start but sometimes in this forum you need to get rid of the egos and pedants early on to allow sensible debate.

Lots of sensible debate too , in my absence:ok:


foxmouth
he best glide is 73kts with a threshold of 70 but the stall is only 44kts full flap so you could comfortably pull up to 60 kts or less and still have an adequate margin.

Clearly there is enough excess speed there to hop over an obstruction.

Would it be fair to ask (without setting Yorks off on another rant )at what time a pilot starts to reduce from best glide speed to a more suitable touch-down speed? Would such a time be some distance before said wires, and therefore there may be the possibility that in fact there is no excess speed available to hop over the wires?

Hence me wondering if a little excess speed might be a good thing.

what Yorks has said above is the rule I applied when my engine went bang and it is because of this I won the CAA Safety Award and none of my passengers or people on the ground were hurt.

Cblinton I read about your incedent and I have to say, it was an awsome piece of flying, you have my absolute respect.
So some excess speed is a good thing in some circumstances.

Didn't spot the wires 'till about 150ft

Which goes to prove how easy it is to miss them.

Thanks again everyone:ok:

[englishal]

I'd put the nose down whatever. No doubt it is human nature to pull up to avoid the wires, but I think you'll be putting yourself in far more danger. As you pull up and drag increases, your airspeed will bleed off very quickly. Inertia is also in a downward direction. Best to put the nose down, increase airspeed and then pull up after you have passed the wires. Besides, there is less for them to catch on on the upside of an aeroplane.

Could always leave the flaps out until you have it made, then if you come across a situation like this, wack in full flap and balloon over the top. You might even be able to avoid the Taj Mahal this way.Fate is the Hunter....

[DFC]

Isn't this similar to the situation where the pilot lines up on final and finds that their approach is going to put them exactly into the near hedge?

Answer - reduce drag - get rid of whatever drag flap you have.

If this was discovered late on then the aircraft will be at the min-approach speed which is below best glide for most aircraft. Thus get back to best glide speed.

Finally, far batter to pancake under control than cut your head off with the wires so - dive at a point just short of the hedge (cables) convert speed to height and promptly lower the nose as the hedge(cables) are cleared.

To see how you will get on, try the exercise at height - dive to best glide +say 15Kt and pull up at a predetermined height until the airspeed reads Vs+5 before lowering the nose positively again.

Note height gained and the time taken from pull-up to push over (so that you can work out distance travelled).

Now for the important bit, after the nose is again lowered, establish level flight at just below the height you pulled up at and see how long you can maintain level flight before the stall and check the attitude - is it the touchdown attitude?.

Best to talk about these things and practice at a safe height than have to make it up when it does happen.

Regards,

DFC

["aux vaches"]

Sedbergh is right

you certainly won't see any wires and you may not see poles but the islands around the pole bases are often easy to spot because they are very different from the rest of the field (try looking the next time you fly)

Its also worth looking at the bigger picture around your chosen field - that farm house 2 fields away is bound to have wires going to it from somewhere and any field boundry with a road running along it is highly suspicious

an obstruction on the approach will displace your touch down point by a minimum of 10 times the height of the obstruction (30 foot tree on the boundry puts you at least 100 yards into the field even if the field is 110 yards long !)

enjoy a few minutes obstruction spotting next time you fly !!


PS sometimes with fields s**t just happens - I went "aux vaches" into a young field of beans this summer and what i thought was a flock of birds turned out to be a forest of fence posts with tesco shopping bags tied on top of them - fortunately knowing s**t happens i had decided to avoid them anyway


perhaps the next discussion could be on how to spot electric fences !!

[ShyTorque]

Yorks.ppl,

I'm not sure there is a single answer to your question because each occasion would present its own difficulties. However, from experience gained during a few thousand hours flying (and training others to fly) at 50-100 feet agl in Support Helicopters, a few hundred of flying single engine jets at low level and instruction in SEP types, I've had a few very close shaves with wires myself. I would like to add a couple of things for you to ponder:

I personally lost four helicopter colleagues to wire strikes, one aircraft hitting large wires, the other hitting quite small ones. Another heli ex colleague, who frequents this website, got his aircraft entangled at very low speed, tried to back off the wire but it broke, flew up and went through the main rotors. They all survived. Doubly lucky because there was a ground threat from enemy action in his case. (Actually triple lucky, he also survived being hit in the face on another occasion by a large seagull that came through his windscreen during a low level flight).

You may or may not see the wires themselves and you may have very little or no time to react if you don't see the poles. Obviously, the secret during a forced landing is to look for the supporting poles early on, as we already know. This would give you the best fighting chance because you might have time to choose another field....

Suddenly faced with wires in your flightpath, you will have no idea in the few seconds whether they are going to break before your aircraft does.

You will probably act by instinct...

I also lost a very good friend and colleague, a fellow RAF QFI, to an SEP accident involving wires. When his engine failed, he did not see the wires across the near end of the field because the poles were hidden in trees (there was just a single span across the field).

The field was very small by UK standards, unfortunately he had no larger field to go for. On very short finals he apparently spotted the wires and tried to go under them. He did so, but unfortunately, he may have over-reacted and lowered the nose too far, because the wire was only 30 feet agl. What he probably thought was a hedge was actually a stone bank with a hedge growing on it. He hit it and was killed outright.

All I can say is that it might, in his case, have been better to have accepted the risk and flown into the wire but who knows for sure? Had he gone through the far hedge he might also have survived.

All told, I think the priority should be to get into the field. I would rather go through the far hedge at low speed than hit the near one at flying speed.

But don't carry extra speed into the field because that is what will kill you.