Flying Low NZ Flight Test

[yellowlines]

Having a debate at the aeroclub over this one.
Who has gone below 500ft in a NZ Flight Test when carrying out the Forced Landing Without Power demo?
(as is legally allowed for a FLWOP as an Instructor, other conditions granted).
If so, did you do call it, or did the examiner call it?

[Artificial Horizon]

Yep, I went so low on the CPL flight test that I had actually decided in my own mind that we were going to actually land in this field. The examiner said he would tell me when to go around. We must have been down to around 50-75 ft when he said 'go-around'. When I was an instructor I found a little field in the south of England that was actually used as a private strip. I had permission of the owner and would actually get my students to land much to thier shock and horror. Good lesson for them though.

[AutopilotEngage]

Generally the examiner will tell you before the flight who's calling the 'go-around', and they will usually get you to go below 500' agl

[framer]

Think we probably got down to about 5ft agl. It was in a low flying area.

[topdrop]

My instructor was an ag pilot - believe he went back to it after training me :ouch::uhoh::mad:
On a practice forced landing in a PA28 - I didn't have any flap out as I had misjudged the approach and I also missed the powerlines about 50 metres before the fenceline I was trying to clear. I admitted my f...kup and was about to go round when the Instructor took over - we went under the powerlines and then he pulled on the flaps and we ballooned over the fence for what would have been a great forced landing, powered up and off for another attempt. It certainly showed me that the same old routine can be altered to achieve the desired result.

[amishtechie]

Yea I called "I will go around at your discretion" in both my instructors and CPL flight tests and both times got down to 200ft before being told to go around. Not to mention getting to the flare in the precautionary landing in the LFZ!

[tartare]

Got so low the wheels crossed the fence.
At that point I said "I am going around..." consciously disobeying the command that I would be instructed when to go around.
As we climbed away, the CFI turned to me and smiled and said "I was waiting to see if you would do that..."

[yellowlines]

Hey, this is great guys, though sorry just want to hear about NZ examples specifically, and if you can put the examiner initials that would be good too

[KerryT]

I did (NZ - North Shore ~3years ago). In a PPL flight test doing a FLWOP I called "go around" at 550 AGL and the flight examiner called "continue" - I think he did this because we were a bit high and it was doubtful whether we would make the field. At this point I considered the examiner was acting as PIC, so I threw on full flaps and started forward-slipping down to about 200' which got us aiming for a good point on the field. At 150 AGL I called "go around" again and started applying power - the examiner said "OK, go around" and we were away again. Then climbing through 600' the examiner pulled the throttle closed without warning and we did the engine failure on take-off drill in a similar fashion.

[Jimbo33]

In the lead up to my PPL flight test, went up with a B Cat from CAC. Went to LFZ1 (for those familiar) and he asked me to do a precautionary landing.

Was looking pretty good, and I was all set to go around at maybe 200' AGL, when he told me to keep going...keep going...keep going. We actually ended up landing, main wheels on the ground for maybe 4-5 secs. Was rough as all hell.

I was honestly quite disturbed by it, and very surprised that we actually landed. I did some discreet questioning back at the club, and it does happen from time to time. Apparently good experience for a student to feel what it's like to land on something other than a runway. Even though it was a very nice, flat, smooth paddock, it was still very very rough.

I guess in this particular LFZ, the instructors are so familiar with it they know which paddocks are suitable for a brief touch and go. If you line up on the right one, they'll sometimes make the call to go all the way.

While I'm sure some would disagree, I think was a great experience. Nice to have some idea of what to expect in the unlikely event of a precautionary landing or FLWOP.

[Lindstrim]

I've heard stories about IAANZ students landing on a padock in front of an instructors house whilst on a cross country. (Cant confirm this as got it 3rd or 4th hand).

In my PPL and CPL i did end up going a bit lower than 500ft during my FLWOP and in the climb out from the LFZ I was about 50ft above the beach, on a simulated engine failure

[yellowlines]

Seems the old examiners do it quite a bit aye, either to make sure of the landing or see if you call it perhaps. For the FLWOP below 500ft it doesn't have to be into the LFZ. Any more NZ stories, keep it going.

[flyinkiwi]

I didn't get below 500AGL when I performed the FLWOP during my PPL checkride, it was during the EFATO during the subsequent climbout where I did, but not below 350AGL. The examiner was not happy with the paddock I had picked and wanted me to choose another and set up for it.

I've been well into the round out in the LFZ before being instructed to go around during my training however. Lets just say that when an instructor pulls that on you, you don't lie awake at night wondering if you would have made it! :}

[pushplay]

EFATO - do what it takes to miss the obstacles while still airborne, and be prepared to brake as per the AFM or take ground looping action. Stay alive! PFLWOP, old skool ehh, if you are not sure at 500'agl you are sure going to understand this is not right at 50' agl. I seem to remember- aim 50% into the length of the chosen best option and then use flap to bring the touchdown point closer to the "threshold" - then as per EFATO.:cool:

[Fark'n'ell]

KerryT

At this point I considered the examiner was acting as PIC, so I threw on full flaps and started forward-slipping down to about 200'

What on earth is a Forward Slip?

[toolowtoofast]

Full flap side (or forward - whatever) slips? What aircraft? Alpha/Robin? Pre PPL?

[KerryT]

Opinions will probably vary, but here's mine:

A side slip is what you use in a cross-wind approach - wing down & top rudder to keep the plane lined up on the runway. Can be held into the flare.

A forward slip is specifically to blow off height in a hurry - full flaps, nose down, wing-down and lots of top rudder. The aircraft still tracks towards the landing point but the fuselage is not in line with it. Airspeed must be kept higher (75-85kts in the little Robin I was in). Must straighten out & slow down before landing flare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_(aerodynamic) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_%28aerodynamic%29)

[Oktas8]

Forward Slip (n):

An intentional slip performed by a pilot from the US of A for the purpose of going forwards and down.
The aircraft will also travel sideways.

Side Slip (n):

An intentional slip performed by a pilot from just about any country, for the purpose of going sideways and down.
The aircraft will also travel forwards.

Slip (n):

An unstalled and unbalanced condition of flight, usually with constant heading.
See also forward slip and side slip.


Back to the topic...

[toolowtoofast]

I know what a side/forward/backward/inverted slip is.

What does the AFM say about intentional slipping with flap?

[yellowlines]

kick

back to the topic!

[yellowlines]

come on folks, there must be more NZ stories to be told on this one!

[HercFeend]

I've lost count of the amount of times I've put down into CD's strip in "Darfield North" - FLWOP, Short Field T/O & LDG. I've touched down plenty of times in the LFZ too as well as various other spots - my instructor (PPL & CPL) is a firm believer in 'doing things for real', for the obvious reasons and I like this approach.
On my PPL test though I was out over the Spit and don't think I got below 100ft on the FLWOP or the EFATO. I'll let you know what happens on the CPL test!

[Konev]

lets just say that when landing on gravel roads it pays to hold the nose higher than normal due to the wheel troughs in the road.

[Dreamflyer1000]

Cant say I thought id ever be pleased the little alpha's sink like stones with full flap, no power, and a slight side slip, but sure saved my bacon on my cpl flight test! I was high, due to visual illusions of the sloping terrain (idiot), pulled out all stops to get down. I dropped to 150ft agl before going around. I told him during the preflight I would go round at his discretion...
Had a lovely 'chat' about making the paddock back on the ground!!:ugh:
Great little plane for flight tests the r2160..just dont try drag her in with a howling gusty xwinds onto a sealed runway...they dont like tail strikes! Il Never forget that!

[outboundjetsetter]

ok hears one.. still very fresh in my mind is my CPL flight test .. although it was around 1999 FLWOP In a LFA.Thought everything looked good, so reminded examiner of 500 ft requirement approaching 550ft.. "Continue, I want to see if you'll make it..ill call it " was the reply.? Ill make it easily i thought to myself.. ( The strip was surrounded by Grape paddocks and straight ahead I was flying into a "u" horse- shoe shaped hill for the climb out/overshoot.
At 150 FEET he called the go around.. I Felt relieved until the subsequent simulated failure at 500 feet.
I ended up turning more than 30 degrees in desperation, looking for any type of ' strip' and was not surprisingly yelled at!.After a further EFATO demonstration during the same flight test.. and one hell of a debrief, on the importance of not turning more than 30/45 degrees at low level, due to the increased descent rates, vcl etc. ( along with the story of an actual EFATO low level 180 degree turn back attempt, which resulted in multiple fatalities)..i'd passed. I have never forgotten that one.. It was kinda drilled into me, the importance of flying the plane.. even if i went straight ahead and stacked onto the grape vines.. protecting the fuselage.., may have been a better outcome then pulling into a steep turn.. washing off speed.. impacting the ground with -2000 feet a min/ negative g outcome.. not an easy call i'm sure.. depending on circumstances etc.. but flying the plane with survival in mind is paramount!.

[Tarq57]

Did a touch and go on a beach once, during a type rating. That was unexpected, and fun.
Several pre-flight test checks, and BFR's have involved going well below 500 feet during forced landing practice. At least once to the flare. All in approved LFA's.
On the actual first PPL flight test, I muffed it (too high) and the subsequent re-test involved 3 or 4 EFATO and one forced landing test. All taken low enough (maybe 100' or lower) so that it was clear the outcome was going to be survivable.
Helo autos I've done (just a few) were taken down to the flare, power added at that point, and converted to a hover. Apart from the fact that it all happens real fast, autos seemed a bit easier to me. I bet they aren't when the real thing happens, though.

[Biggles78]

I am astonished at some of the posts here. As a CPL, YOU are the PIC for this flight and it is YOU who decides and is responsible for that flight. The flight tester can make suggestions as to what he wants done but YOU are responsible for the flight and staying inside the Rules.

On my CPL preflight brief I informed GL (you wanted initials) what I would and would not be doing. I would not have the mixture pulled and I would simulate changing tanks, checking mags etc and I would not break 500' AGL during the FLWOP (and no, I did not simulate Carb Heat). If the engine was running with the settings before the throttle was closed then I didn't want to change anything when I initiated the go around at 550' AGL. Read what the Regs (sorry, now they are Rules) say about flying below 500'. The low flying area is different because the Rules say it is.

If you are unsure about being able to make the field/landing area by the 1,000' point then you need more training. After all isn't that why we practised all those Full Glide Approaches onto an airfield.

If you have a private strip to land on then you can take it all the way down. This is especailly good for the confidence of a PPL and it is legal. Having them enter Club competitions is another way to better simulate a FLWOP as it does add the extra pressure of hitting the spot.

[BurntheBlue]

Biggs

You have a point, in that the CPL candidate should absolutely ensure he/she fly's within the rules. But here's one or two things to think about.

I would not have the mixture pulled and I would simulate changing tanks, checking mags etc and I would not break 500' AGL during the FLWOP... ...If you are unsure about being able to make the field/landing area by the 1,000' point then you need more training
And you would never find out how reliable your aircraft (and indeed you decision making skills) may or may not be under controlled conditions... So then, how are you going to react when you don't make that perfect 1000ft point because your engine has stopped in an entirely inconvenient position at an unexpected height?

That's the whole point in simulations isn't it? To catch the student off guard, to see if they will handle the real thing.

Where ever it is safe to do so, it's always worth going to the ground because no two FLWOPs or EFATOs are the same. Guaranteed the real thing will be different again. The more exposure you get, the better off you will be when that fateful day arrives.

Read what the Regs (sorry, now they are Rules) say
There are two occasions where an LFZ isn't required for flight below 500agl. The Bona-fide purpose (effectively provides examiners with free reign, and they will exercise it) and the EFATOs under instructors authority.

Paragraph (a)(2) (the 500ft rule) does not apply to a pilot-in-command of an aircraft
(c) if the bona fide purpose of the flight requires the aircraft to be flown at a height lower than that prescribed in paragraph (a)(2), but only if——
(d)
(1) the flight is performed without hazard to persons or property on the surface; and
(2) only persons performing an essential function associated with the flight are carried on the aircraft; and
(3) the aircraft is not flown at a height lower than that required for the purpose of the flight; and
(4) the horizontal distance that the aircraft is flown from any obstacle, person, vessel, vehicle, or structure is not less than that necessary for the purpose of the flight, except that in the case of an aeroplane, the aeroplane remains outside a horizontal radius of 150 metres from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure that is not associated with the operation.

Paragraph (a)(2) does not apply to a pilot-in-command——
(1) who is the holder of, or authorised by the holder of, a current instructor rating issued under Part 61 and who is conducting flight training or practice flights consisting of——
(i) simulated engine failure after take-off commencing below 1000 feet above the surface; or
(ii) simulated engine failure commencing above 1000 feet above the surface provided that descent below 500 feet above the surface is conducted within a low flying zone in accordance with 91.131;

[Clearedtoreenter]

On the PFL in my CPL test, I picked this god awful dog leg paddock, rough as guts with a big hump in the middle - and then the examiner insisted I land in it. Turned out to be Ryleston airfield.:)

[flyinkiwi]

Helo autos I've done (just a few) were taken down to the flare, power added at that point, and converted to a hover. Apart from the fact that it all happens real fast, autos seemed a bit easier to me. I bet they aren't when the real thing happens, though.

There's a saying that rotary pilots don't screw up autos because there isn't time. :}

[Aerozepplin]

I always enjoyed forced landings in the slab wing arrow because of that. Your decision making was "what's under me?" Then you go and land on it, pretty much an auto-rotation! You descend to get enough energy to flare.

[Weekend_Warrior]

Nothing except a helicopter goes down faster than an Gruman AA1 w/o power.
Many years ago, one got written off in South Wairarapa on an FLWOP exercise. Seems the pilots (instructor+student) both forgot to warm the engine on the way down after simulated failure at 3000 ft. Overshoot comenced at about 30ft, but the noise didn't recomence until after the aircraft hit the fence at the start of the paddock. So the exercise was a total failure.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

Ah yes, FLWOP in the AA-1... On the plus side there's minimal danger of getting too high!

[Aerozepplin]

Engine warm? I thought Grummans were shot out of catapults...

[BurntheBlue]

And only climb by virtue of the curvature of the Earth...

[flyinkiwi]

I always enjoyed forced landings in the slab wing arrow because of that. Your decision making was "what's under me?" Then you go and land on it, pretty much an auto-rotation! You descend to get enough energy to flare. When doing my Arrow type rating I had the power pulled by my instructor 1500 feet overhead the airfield (with gear extended) and I only just made the runway. I remember looking at the VSI and it was sitting between 1500 and 2000 fpm. Talk about a ground rush! :eek:

[LocoDriver]

Aerozepplin,
you are nearly correct.

Grummans flyoff the earths surface on a tangent, as it curves away beneath them.. Thats why they require a long runway.(and yes, I have a AA1 rating....)

As for a previous comment, yes it would be an interesting comparison between, say a CB300 auto-rotating, and a AA1-C in glide mode, to see who arrived first....................

Nah, Cessnas Rule...............

That should get a few bites...


:E:E:E