Forced landing WITH power

[hugh flung_dung]

When I was instructing it was a normal part of our training for studes to learn how to pick a field and to fly timed circuits around it for inspection and then an approach, all assuming poor viz and low cloud. Mutterings on another thread make me suspect that this is not taught by some schools, or that PPLs don't practice it. If you don't know how to do it then it would be a good thing to practice during the next flight with an FI ...

There's a reasonable description of the procedure here: but it doesn't mention timings for poor viz - ask your FI.
Remember that field length can be estimated by flying down it and timing: 1 second equates to 100 feet at 60kt (or 125 feet at 75kt, and so on).

HFD

[dobbin1]

I still teach ex 17, but actually flying it seems a bit of a waste of time due to the need to fly it well above the heights talked about in the brief. Going down to 100 ft for a low pass over the field will often lead to a rule 5 violation, at least in my (densely populated) part of the world. A low pass at 600 ft just isn't the same. I have sometimes just skipped the flying exercise and just handled it as a ground briefing.

Good tip on timing to estimate the field length.

[wood73]

I learned them a few weeks back, precautionary landings.
Done them at 500 - 600 ft, then properly at the airfield over the runway.

[S-Works]

Its not a a forced landing with power, its a precautionary landing..... :O

[hugh flung_dung]

Bose-x: You are, of course, strictly correct. I plead senility, or perhaps I was still annoyed at the "other" thread.

Dobbin: you don't need much of an open area to do this and, as wood73 did, the final practice can be done near the airfield (but then it's difficult to convince the stude to use timings and not to cheat).

Our standard brief was:

Pick field and direction: as for FLWOP
Inspect: fly down intended landing strip at 400-500 ft AGL, note heading, use time to estimate LRA, continue into wind for 30 secs after end of landing area, pick a landmark, fly crosswind for 30 secs, pick a landmark, fly downwind for 60-75 secs, pick a landmark, fly base for 30 secs, turn onto heading, let down to 50-100 ft
Detailed inspection: as above, climbing to safe height after the inspection until timings say you're back on final approach

Note: use DI to estimate drift allowances on legs.

The message is that, while it's better to keep the field in sight, timings work well enough to be able to find the field if you lose it.

HFD

[localflighteast]

I have no idea about the UK but in Canada it is a flight test item.
Examiner gives you scenario and you have to pick out a field, depending on scenario you fly a high and low level inspection (time permitting) before attempting to land in the field.

My comment would be that the actual physical maneuver is taught but the decision making process leading to you deciding to put it down in a field could probably be better explored

[mary meagher]

Hey, dungflinger, you are just as hung up on square circuits as the rest of the noisy bunch.

In the UK anyway, glider circuits ALWAYS fly the diagonal leg. So begin with your downwind, judging the correct angle to your intended field....too high? move out, too low, move in. Then instead of carrying on downwind until you LOOSE SIGHT OF THE FIELD, you cut off the corner. And this way never get disoriented.

In the US, gliders usually share a field with power and need to fit in with the rectangular patterns, fair enough. Here in the UK, every gliding circuit (or pattern if you prefer that term) includes the DIAGONAL LEG. Much safer and works nicely for field landings.

I used to be sitting behind my student, when in the old days square circuits were flown, sending thought waves, dropping hints, and actually getting the leans, losing sight of the landing area, wondering if he was EVER going to turn on to the base leg....the new way makes so much sense. If you don't have to worry about circuit traffic in your field landing practice, try it, guys. It works.

Remember, glider pilots only get one chance to get it right. Going around is seldom an option.

[worrab]

Some of the noisy bunch are quite content with a constant aspect approach.

[Pace]

Pick field and direction: as for FLWOP
Inspect: fly down intended landing strip at 400-500 ft AGL, note heading, use time to estimate LRA, continue into wind for 30 secs after end of landing area, pick a landmark, fly crosswind for 30 secs, pick a landmark, fly downwind for 60-75 secs, pick a landmark, fly base for 30 secs, turn onto heading, let down to 50-100 ft
Detailed inspection: as above, climbing to safe height after the inspection until timings say you're back on final approach

HFD

All sounds great for the armchair pilot but far removed from reality :ugh:
For a start the pilot maybe in rain 1000 meter vis or less and down at 250 agl with bits of cloud passing under the aircraft ???

Another method is to pass at 100 feet down wind with the landing area on your left and tear drop back onto a final to actually land. Mary talks a lot of sense from her gliding experience.

How are you in reality going to choose landmarks which might vanish in mist or low cloud ( Reality)
It should be a procedure which is controlled and has an element of VMC and IMC built in.
anything less than an IMC procedure built in is asking for trouble because you cannot be assured of good VMC in reality

Pace

[Talkdownman]

Even Heathrow Number 2 Director vectors converging downwind legs with very little straight flight on the base legs...

[mary meagher]

worrab, is "constant aspect approach" another term for including a diagonal leg and never loosing sight of where you intend to plonk the aircraft? I believe this is taught in the RAF....correct me if not the case.

As far as HFD's directions for timings, etc, 30 seconds here, 40 seconds there, that to my mind is VERY CONFUSING. That would clutter up my brain at a time I need to be looking ahead and thinking and estimating present position, wind drift, height, angle. As soon as you throw in prescribed timings, you are making something complicated that is really fairly simple. Has he ever done any approaches in a glider, I wonder? and how long ago?

I used to ask my students, What is the difference between flying a circuit at the gliding club or flying a circuit into a farmer's field? and the student would faff about naming all the possibilities. The answer is, There is No Difference Except you Don't Have to worry about the Traffic. So every gliding circuit even at the home field where you have a rough idea of your height relative to your position, is a practice field landing.

Having chosen the reference point, is it moving up the canopy? You are undershooting, put the airbrakes away. Is it moving down the canopy? overshooting. More airbrakes. (some call them spoilers. They do NOT slow you down, they simply increase or reduce the rate of descent. Excellent device for accurate touchdowns.

[worrab]

A (UK?) glider approach has a diagonal towards the end of the downwind and onto a base followed by a turn onto final and a straight approach. If you imagine being somewhat lazy, the turns will be less pronounced and the straight bits rather curved until everything's merged into a single turn from the end of the downwind onto the runway threshold. I believe the RAF teach the curved approach method ab initio.

[Level Attitude]

It should be a procedure which is controlled and has an element of VMC and IMC built in.
anything less than an IMC procedure built in is asking for trouble because you cannot be assured of good VMC in realityPace,
A good reason for conducting a Precautionary Landing would be if a pilot was completely lost (especially with night and or bad weather approaching)

If, as you suggest, they are already completely in it " in rain 1000 meter vis or less and down at 250 agl with bits of cloud passing under the aircraft" I would call this a Forced Landing (due Wx) with power available to adjust the approach.

mary,
A "constant aspect approach" would involve flying a curve from downwind to just above the "threshold" - I am not sure a "diagonal" comes in to it.
Generally, I would suggest, some timing does come in to it (ie 10 seconds from the downwind point to commencing the curve) in order to more easily place the aircraft at 100' to 200' on short final (particularly with high wing aircraft) to give time for small adjustments to the last part of the approach before landing.

[maxred]

Dungflinger, Mary I like that. Very clevr.

The other thread, agreed, had lost track, but the comment of 5k viz, with broken clag at 400'feet agl, is doable, is total rubbish.

Can I suggest that a lot of posters/pilots have a great sense of selective amnesia. Has anyone recently tried to find a grass strip, scud running at 400, in crap? It is very, no nigh, impossible, unless you know the lie of the land extremely well. Even then, the visual difference between 400-500-600-700-800, differs enormously. The whole visual perspective changes with every 100 feet vertical, and then add in 2 miles a minute horizontally. Tough, very tough. Add blind panic in, then the situation becomes very difficult.

I agree entirely that much more training has to be done, if only to appreciate the very different visual perspectives at low level.

[9 lives]

Its not a a forced landing with power, its a precautionary landing

Well, if weather related, yes, though if mechanical, fire, etc. there could be a forced landing with power, I've done a couple.

Forced, or precautionary, the implication is that it's a landing in a place not originally planned, and it's probably a rushed, stressed decision, under deteriorating circumstances. And... aside from the mechanical/fire reason, most pilots have probably waited too long, so it's worse.

If weather caused, there's some chance that you've run up against very poor weather on at least one "side". This could seriously restrict the maneuvering space, so a "normal" circuit will not be possible, and attempting it a bad idea. A part of the practice of forced/precautionary approaches is selecting the landing spot, and setting up your own approach.

It is vital to practice these skills in a training environment. When the aircraft traffic permits (things are very quiet), students should be given short circuit, restricted maneuvering landing scenarios. Another critical aspect, is that once, with partial power, you have decided to land, do not change that decision if the power returns, fulfill your plan, that surge may not last long...

[A and C]

Quite why will a precautionry landing practice end in a Rule 5 violation ? Parts of West Sussex are very rural.

[RatherBeFlying]

Having done 8 landouts (others have done multiples more) it's a whole bunch simpler than all the folderol involved with a precautionary, which I have demonstrated to at least two examiners.

The power folks have overcomplicated forced and precautionary procedures which will inevitably be conducted under pressure.

There's so much stuff to remember that many incident pilots will be beating their brains for any missed bits of the procedure when the primary focus needs to be getting the a/c to the best available patch of ground at the right airspeed. Everything else is optional.

Generally as Mary said well, a landout circuit is the same as a circuit at the home field.

Sometimes you have several minutes. I remember spending close to an hour over a field before I was able to leave.

Other times you have to make a swift decision, especially if you suddenly find yourself lower than you really should be either because of sink:{, altimeter overreading because of pressure change from a frontal passage:mad:, or overoptimistic glide computer indications:}

Interestingly such situations commonly arise when you can't quite make it back to the field or intended runway. Much better a good approach to the field or runway you can make than trying to reach one you can't;)

[Andy_P]

I am doing prec search and land this Friday as part of my training (in Aus). My understanding is we do it at the airstrip so its legal.

Re Forced landings, I have already done that. It is done in the training area and you are taught how to pick a suitable landing area and the tricks to make it a successful land. Once at 500' (on final) you know damn well if you are too low/high and if it will be a successful land.

As a student now, when coming into land from the training area I always do a normal approach with a touch and go, then go around to do a simulated forced land or a flapless approach etc. Keeps the skills up. After friday, I will also add in a prec search and land to that process.

[tecman]

I quite understand why early training has to be conservative with respect to practice height for a PSL but the reality is that 500' AGL really isn't good enough. It's much better than nothing, but there are any number of things that can kick in below that point; these all require practice in energy management, to use a contemporary phrase.

My flying background has not been exceptional but I think that some gliding experience, plus landing a variety of aircraft in off-airport landings (mostly planned!), has helped develop some useful skills. I completely agree with a number of posters who point out that, in challenging circumstances, the battle is - and should be - more mental (including decision making) than procedural.

I guess it's tough in areas of high population density but I've often found that instructors in rural parts of Australia have PSL-friendly paddocks and beaches allocated, or strips that are strips in name only. With the right owner permission arrangements in place, these are invaluable to the pilot who wants some help in going beyond the basics. Like all flying, messing up can ruin your day, but a total fear of planting a typical SEP spam-can in e.g. a good paddock is misplaced.

[S-Works]

Quote:
Its not a a forced landing with power, its a precautionary landing
Well, if weather related, yes, though if mechanical, fire, etc. there could be a forced landing with power, I've done a couple.


It's still a precautionary landing, excercise 17.....:ok:

[A and C]

It seems to me that this precautioary landing is because pilots are forced into the situation so what we call it is not the issue.

The bigest problem is that most pilots dont use the option until they are totaly backed into a corner and wait until it has to be done RIGHT NOW.

This is when the trouble starts and it becomes less and less like EX17 (not the one that some places teach down to 500ft) and more like a panic measure.

No one landing like this is going to be quite like another so a wide range of courses of action need considering, Much like what is happening on this thread but this has to be done in the cold light of day, not when backed into a corner.

Those who teach Ex17 down to 500 ft and then just tick the boxes on the student training record are just ripping the student off and setting the student up for an accident rather than an inccident should the student subsequently be backed into a corner as well as making life more dangerous for those on the ground.
There are undoubtedly occations when a student selects a field that will result in a 500 ft rule infringment and that practice has to be discontinued. This does not represent a satisfactory completion of EX17, it just indicates that it will have to be repeated until the student demonstrates the ability to perform to the required standard.

[Amblikai]

Just out of curiosity, if you do have to perform a forced landing in a field somewhere for weather or another reason, what do you do afterwards?

Can you take off from the same field when the weather is better or do you have to get the plane out by road? Can all planes have their wings removed etc for this purpose?

Forgive me if its a daft question.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Depends whose plane it is. Where I rent the flying order book says "phone the club and tell them you've landed in a field; in due course a decision will be made as to whether the aircraft can be flown out by an instructor".

[Amblikai]

So there's nothing "regulation wise" stopping you from flying out of a random field? I assumed that you could only fly out of designated "airfields".

Would you need to inform the CAA of your intent to take off?

So is there anything to stop a farmer buying his own plane and regularly flying out of his field?

Apologies for all the questions!

[worrab]

You may upset the neighbours, you may upset the planning authorities if they think that a field has magically become an aerodrome, you may upset passers by who thought you'd crashed and you may upset the livestock.

On the other hand, tens (hundreds?) of farmers in the UK do land and take off perfectly legally from their own land without telling anyone.

[Amblikai]

I don't know why but i think that's great!

Maybe it's because when you're learning to fly, everything seems so restrictive/prohibitively expensive that you just assume there would be some massive red tape or cost stopping you from doing this.

Sorry for hijacking the thread! Thanks!

[9 lives]

Most GA types have wings which can be removed with modest work, though there will be more effort to reinstall and rig them. Cherokee types are more likely to suffer damage during this work than strut braced Cessnas. There are a few types I know of, for which removing the wings is not possible = problem. An off airport landing has been more successful if that place affords a takeoff path.

One of the challenges of off airport landing place selection will be that in other than dead flat countryside, the surface you've picked will be not as flat on final approach, as it appeared to be from above. That will mean a more challenging landing, and greater risk that that nice field you picked from above, and landed in, is not suitable for a takeoff at all.

Sometimes a whole aircraft can be taken by road to a place where a takeoff is possible, or it could be slung out by helicopter. The only time I have forced landed into a field from which I could not takeoff, with a bit of fence fiddling, I was able to tow the aircraft to a field from which I could takeoff safely. Only time, no cost :)

In any case, this is why it's really good to not leave this until the last opportunity. The early decision that you cannot continue gives more choice of landing sites, and more opportunity to validate their suitability, or better, just to divert to a different aerodrome! Early awareness means more time to deal with the situation, and better choices.

[ChickenHouse]

When I was doing EASA Part.FCL PPL this kind of precautionary landings was part of the training and we did quite some of them. Procedure was as described, fly a simulated rectangular pattern and let down to 50-100ft. If I remember correctly, you had to present a FI signoff for at least 3(?) of them to qualify for exam. There was a standardized report on board, where the FI filled in location and time for recording the violations of § something go below minimum height. I don't know wether this changed with the ATO thing, but it was a regular exercise when I learned and they told us it would be allowed even later for training purposes, as long as it is proper documented. Some of the §§§ guys around, is this still true?

[UV]

I asked this in the other thread and ask again now!

Has anyone ever landed a Group A (or whatever they are called now) aeroplane in a field due to bad weather? Or heard of anyone who has? Well? In many years, Ive never heard of anyone doing it.

There is not an unsubstantial risk involved both with the landing and any subsequent take off. Therefore I would expect to see some accident reports. There are none, that I know of.

Maybe one ought to be asking why pilots appear to avoid it, possibly at any costs. I assume they try to get to an airfield, sometimes with tragic consequences.

So lets try and find out why, few if any, pilots actually go ahead and carry out a forced landing with power in a field?

I do not include helos, gliders, or microlights in this discussion.

[A and C]

The UK CAA has made it clear that it will not support a prosecution of a flying instructor under Rule 5 (500 ft rule) if the instructor is carrying out training of forced landings (with ot without power) as long as resonable care has been taken to not infringe rule 5.

So I see this being if you fly less than 500 ft from a farm house you will get busted, if you fly nearer that 500 ft to some walkers who had been hidden by a hedge while approaching an otherwise empty field you will not get busted.

This was as a result of a failed prosecution of a flying instructor who was carrying EAFTO training. Any wise instructor will keep a record of this training just incase a low flying complaint is made.

UV I have known it to happen, if you get it right you just fly the aircraft out of the field so no need for any fuss, after all most grass airfields are just fields that people put the word "air" in front of to tell you that aircraft regularly use it.

[RatherBeFlying]

A considerable number of aircraft that were successfully landed in fields or roads have been written off in the subsequent takeoff.

At a nearby field a pilot landed after it turned out his fuel calculations were a bit short.

He snagged his gear on the fence taking off:=

Farmers can mow a takeoff lane and take down fences and posts once compensation is agreed, usually at a price well below the cost of dismantling and putting things back together;)

I know of one 16m glider that was pushed out of a field and 2 miles down a gravel road.

[Maoraigh1]

Has anyone ever landed a Group A (or whatever they are called now) aeroplane in a field due to bad weather? Or heard of anyone who has?

A Pa28-161 rented from Highland Flying Services was landed by a PPL on the beach near Fort William due to weather, and flown out by the CFI with no damage.
A Pa28 touring from England was landed in a field SW of Inverness, due to weather, and successfully flown out by the pilot when weather improved.

The emphasis in training seems to be on a procedure, rather than a successful landing, whether with or without power. A friend who didn't do his SEP paperwork in time, and had to sit a test, was given a PFL. He positioned to land on a microlight strip, to a certainty of success, but was failed as he did not fly a circuit.
As regards choosing a field, in my home area, at present, I cannot predict the softness of grass/stubble fields until my boot sinks in.

[9 lives]

Has anyone ever landed a Group A (or whatever they are called now) aeroplane in a field due to bad weather?

I have certainly landed in a few "rough strips", lakes (seaplane) and frozen lakes I knew, on both wheels and skis to prevent having to fly onward into deteriorating or unknown weather. I once landed an ultralight in a field due to fog enroute. But I do avoid unknown surfaces/areas for no good reason, and so far so good.

if you fly nearer that 500 ft to some walkers who had been hidden by a hedge while approaching an otherwise empty field

Those darn walkers, what nerve! I can just picture the Monty Python skit of walkers springing out of the hedge to take note of registrations of unsuspecting low flying planes [or galleons]!

[India Four Two]

the Monty Python skit of walkers springing out of the hedge

No, no, no. They would be Cardinals. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

[Ebbie 2003]

Here's some forced landings that were successful

Happy End: photographs of miraculous aeroplane crashes where everyone survived - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11342934/Happy-End-photographs-of-miraculous-aeroplane-crashes-where-everyone-survived.html)

[flyinkiwi]

NZ has designated Low Flying Zones, where flight below 500 feet is legal under certain conditions, namely dual instruction.

Has anyone ever landed a Group A (or whatever they are called now) aeroplane in a field due to bad weather? Or heard of anyone who has? Well? In many years, Ive never heard of anyone doing it.

I don't know anyone personally who has landed in a field because of bad weather/deteriorating light etc, but I did land once when our engine ran rough because of water in one of the tanks. Fortunately we were high enough to be within gliding distance of a nearby airfield so I landed there.

[mary meagher]

In October, 1960, a Pan American Boeing 707 landed at Northolt, instead of Heathrow, by mistake.....was looking out for the gasometer landmark and got muddled up a bit. Managed to stop before hitting the far hedge...

They had to unload EVERYTHING to fly it out the next day...with a different pilot. But didn't have to take the wings off....

[ChickenHouse]

Has anyone ever landed a Group A (or whatever they are called now) aeroplane in a field due to bad weather? Or heard of anyone who has? Well? In many years, Ive never heard of anyone doing it.

Dunnit two times. First was my first longer mountain flight, clouds came down and down until I found myself in a valley with all hill tops in clouds, so I circled and landed at a small wet cow meadow of a farm (the only place to let down). The farmer took me by tractor to my destination airfield, was only about 3 miles behind the hills and next day I took off again in blue sky and after a fabulous breakfast at the farmers house. He became a very good friend of mine. Second time I was x-country with blue skies prognosis when a cold front mangled weather laundry and carb icing over a lake in 1.000ft forced me to land at nearest possible gras. I spent the night in the tent I had and took off next morning without seeing anybody.

[India Four Two]

NZ has designated Low Flying Zones, where flight below 500 feet is legal under certain conditions, namely dual instruction. When I did a flight test to obtain a NZ licence on the strength of my Canadian one, I did practice forced landings with and without power down to 50' in the Tauranga LFZ. My instructor also had me doing steep turns at 200', partly over the sea and partly over land (with 50' trees :eek: ).

Low-flying and decision making in simulated poor visibility is a requirement in NZ for PPL issue and BFRs:

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Task: Low flying in simulated poor visibility
Objective:
To determine that the candidate;
(a) Enters the low flying area (if applicable) in accordance with
recommended procedures.
(b) Adopts the recommended poor visibility configuration when
confronted with simulated poor visibility conditions.
(c) Maintains altitude ± 100' and airspeed ± 5 knots whilst
manoeuvring in the poor visibility configuration.
(d) Limits the bank angle whilst turning in the poor visibility
configuration to a maximum of 45°.
(e) Is capable of carrying out a coastal reversal turn and/or weather
avoidance and/or restricted terrain type turn in accordance with the
recommended procedure.ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Task: Forced landing with power
Objective:
To determine that the candidate;
(a) Recognises the conditions under which a precautionary landing is
advisable.
(b) Maintains control of the aircraft during all phases of the simulated
emergency.
(c) Adopts the recommended aircraft configuration and procedure,
considering altitude, wind, terrain, obstructions and other relevant
factors.
(d) Selects a suitable landing area for a forced landing with power.
(e) Initiates the missed approach at the minimum safe height (or higher
as directed by the flight examiner or instructor).
http://www.caa.govt.nz/pilots/Instructors/FTSG_PPL_RPL_A.pdf

[Gertrude the Wombat]

My instructor also had me doing steep turns at 200' ... partly over land (with 50' trees :eek: ).
That's waaaaay too far about the trees for some approaches into "interesting" lakes! Would expect NZ training to be more into bush flying than that :-)

[Flying Lawyer]

A and C

The UK CAA has made it clear that it will not support a prosecution of a flying instructor under Rule 5 (500 ft rule) if the instructor is carrying out training of forced landings (with ot without power) as long as resonable care has been taken to not infringe rule 5.

This was as a result of a failed prosecution of a flying instructor who was carrying EAFTO training.


If that's the case I think it is, demolishing the prosecution witness accounts in cross-examination, demonstrating that they'd put their heads together to tell the same story and exposing their underlying nimby agenda was pure joy. :)

A barrister's opinion about whether a client is telling the truth is irrelevant but I had no doubt whatsoever that the FI didn't breach Rule 5, and I was delighted for him when he was acquitted.


FL

[hugh flung_dung]

Ms Meagre*: I'm very well aware of constant aspect approaches and how glider pilots do it (I was at LGS for 10+ years and have done my share of field landings) but we are not talking about "one shot" approaches in a glider. In this situation the pilot has decided that landing is necessary and still has power available, it is therefore appropriate to inspect the intended landing area before committing.
The situation is low cloud and poor viz. The first pass is made at a height that is above any pylons that may or may not be present.
It's easier to allow for drift if the "circuit" is square (yes, I know it would be possible to use hold timing techniques but that's a bit academic for this situation) but if viz is reasonable it's far better to keep the strip in sight, and for this an oval circuit would be preferable.

Pace: the training is for a hypothetical situation. The method works. The reason for looking for landmarks on the first pass is to help orientation during the inspection or landing.

Great to see a healthy discussion.

UPDATED: to say that my thread starter seems to have lost an intended link, here it is: precautionary landing procedure (http://www.caa.govt.nz/fig/advanced-manoeuvres/precautionary-landing.html)

HFD
* nothing meant by that, but you played with my "name" so I thought I'd play with yours :E

[mary meagher]

HFD, you are a very naughty boy!

I apologise for mistyping your handle, the only reason I use my true name (that you are mangling) is I pushed the wrong button when enrolling on this website. All these new fangled devices...didn't even have a computer until 2007. Sadly took my old Olympia typewriter to OXFAM this summer....it worked perfectly for more than 50 years. Had to shell out for a new printer, and it wouldn't talk to my applemac. At PC World they said it was my fault. That my applemac was 5 years old and out of date!
They didn't want the printer back because I had already put ink in it! (After I discussed the salesperson's attitude with the manager they gave me my choice of compatible printers.)

I have the same attitude toward aircraft. Give me a type that has been flying since 1934, and proving itself in every way on every continent. The Piper Cub, amended over the centuries and still unbeatable for hauling gliders out of fields.

[hugh flung_dung]

A quick note to expand my earlier point about about why to use square circuits if the viz is poor and headings/timings are needed - drift correction is the reason.

If the wind strength is known/estimated, and the intended landing is into wind (which it should be) then the heading adjustment on the base/xwind legs can be fairly accurately guesstimated using Max Drift and applied (without sums) just by looking at the DI.

For this purpose MD is near enough to <windspeed x 60 / IAS>, which in bad viz config is going to be about 2/3 of the windspeed. Therefore, if the windspeed is 15kt (and you're flying a Left hand "circuit") turn to put the landing direction 10 degrees in front of the right wing on crosswind leg and 10 degrees in front of the left wing on base leg. This is difficult in words but a picture makes it obvious so, if it doesn't click, do yourself a sketch.

HFD

(Mary: I remember your articles in S&G during the early 80s.)

[Ridger]

If that's the case I think it is, demolishing the prosecution witness accounts in cross-examination, demonstrating that they'd put their heads together to tell the same story and exposing their underlying nimby agenda was pure joy

Apologies for posting out thread context but I would have happily bought a ticket to see that!

Don't suppose you could do the same job on the 'aviation experts' which appear on TV interviews providing accident analysis within minutes of a reported accident?

[Pace]

HFD

This is the whole point that no off field landings are the same, no weather situations are the same and what works for one set of conditions won't work on another.

It might in deed be the case that you land with a tail wind or crosswind in extreme situations and its a better bet to take out a hedge or remove the nose wheel than fall to the ground or impact trees

Remember too that once on the ground you still have control! How many pilots sit there feet on the brakes in a straight line as passengers into whatever? You still have control options to avoid once on the ground

you must always have a plan but be able to change that plan to suit the situation.

There will be times when you can inspect the surface and obstacles and set up a nice pattern but there also maybe times when you are flying in very poor visibility and a suitable field appears on the nose you knowing that to continue might mean that the field vanishes under mist and cloud and also knowing for whatever reason you have to get on the ground.

The obvious is to take to the clouds, fly IMC to the MSA and get help but real world and differing situations don't always work to plan so always have plan A B C and D because it when you have no plans that your finished.

Yes there will be a risk but at this stage you have to decide the greater risk and live with the consequences of your decision
The worst situation is to be acting on blind panic impulse with no plan and no control because NO control of yourself or the aircraft will lead to Loss of control of yourself and the aircraft with fatal results

pace

[A and C]

I sat through the two days of it !

Day one I had a trainee magistrate sitting beside me, the lady was a bit shocked to find out I was a friend of the guy in the dock, and even more shocked when I said that the defendant was being done up like a kipper by the nimby's with the ill advised help of the CAA.

By the end of day one it had become apparent that this was the case.

By the end of day two we had the prosecution witness who could not tell if the aircraft that was allegedly nearer than 500 ft to him was high or low winged !

The Defence barrister was first class and no doubt several rungs above the leagal advocates normaly seen in the Beaconsfield magistrates court, it was a joy to see the CAA case slowly pulled apart and exposed for the anti airfield conspiracy that it was.

The whole thing left the CAA looking particularly spineless , it was clear that they had only backed the very vocal Nimbys to get a quiet life thinking a pennyless flying instructor would roll over and take a small fine, what they got was a leagal tour de force that left them wiping a considerable amount of egg from their faces.

[hugh flung_dung]

Pace:
The situations that you mention put the outcome in the hands of fate; specially "taking to the clouds" if the pilot hasn't had the training so to do. People need to be trained to make the decision before it becomes an emergency "must land anywhere in any direction" situation, that's partly what Precautionary Landing training and practice is all about.
In bad viz the timing/heading/landmark system works - I haven't had to do it for real (superior aviator uses ... etcetera:)) but have demo'd and sat through stude practice many times, when possible in relatively grotty conditions.

I completely agree that flexibility is important, and also the need for a plan - hence the Precautionary Landing training. Also, 'tis far better to exercise Captaincy and superior judgement to avoid situations ... etcetera, etcetera.

HFD

[mary meagher]

HFD, me old china, you being a Lashamite and I presume a gliding instructor? if so Lasham being the enormous field that it is, presents a problem. You can land that glider/tug/DC3 ANYWHERE, with all that field spread around in front and in back of you! It's too easy!

A lot of clubs we fly gliders from offer a much greater possibility of nowhere to go... think of Parham - of Talgarth, even of Aboyne, or Feshiebridge, or for that matter, the Mynd has got some pretty bumpy bits.

Your prescription for numbers, etc, has only fried my brain, I don't compute numbers at all, and I bet plenty of other student pilots would have the same difficulty. Some can navigate, some are born without that skill. Some can do your charts and your analysis, and others find it simpler to just say THAT angle looks OK, or we need to get closer in, or further out. PULeeze, don't be so rigid....o how I wish I could still fly with you and give you a hard time at shenners...

You mention in your last post that you havn't done it for real? Well, only in gliders, I have done it a fair bit. Had to change the plan when horses were observed. Or the field sloped the wrong way. Or I chose the wrong crop (maize instead of barley....) And the first time I ever landed out was trying to get from Booker to Lasham for the 50 k in a K8 glider....the farmer arrived with a shotgun...but was very helpful, not hostile. I arranged for a tug to land in that field, which was full of flints....arrgh! and got told off at Lasham for a terrible circuit. Doing it for real does a LOT for your self confidence, that's for sure.

I much prefer the BGA instructor syllabus, with the S's. Size, surface, slope. We remind the student that he can judge the wind strength and direction by his drift over the ground. But spare us the numbers and percentages, I don't think it helps those of us who have a hard time dealing with numbers. If I had to try to remember your advice, I would be hung up on the details, not the actual approach and landing.

[hugh flung_dung]

Mary: once again, we're talking about Precautionary Landings in a powered aircraft where there is an opportunity to inspect the intended landing area before committing to a landing. We are not talking about field landing in a glider, which is a one shot affair (as I found to my cost when I caught a tip on the stubble in a Pik20D many years ago :sad:)

Regarding MaxDrift (and MDR) calcs - I would hope that all or most PPLs who were trained in this country would be familiar with the simple sums needed to estimate drift (and groundspeed) when they learned how to fly accurate diversions. Likewise constant aspect approaches for PFLs, but I'm risking going off at a tangent. There must be loads of info on t'web about MaxDrift, MDR and Constant Aspect but we could start a thread on them if that would be useful.

HFD

(FWIW I stopped being a gliding instructor about 25 years ago, having first gone solo about 43 years ago (there were some big gaps!). Everything I've discussed in this thread has related to powered aircraft.

[Pace]

Also, 'tis far better to exercise Captaincy and superior judgement to avoid situations ... etcetera, etcetera.

HFD

I totally agree with your above statement but sadly people are very imperfect creatures and do get into bad situations otherwise accidents like this would not occur so we are not talking about Mr/Miss perfect Captain with superior judgements but how best to get out of a mess you have got into preferably still alive.

i Think I am a realist and while theories are a great tool to add to an array of tools at your disposal like feet none fit every size of shoe

Sadly that is reality

Pace

[A and C]

Having done a bit of flying instruction over the last twenty years I think your faith in the ability of pilots to do mental arithmetic while under the considerable pressure is a little wide of the mark.

There are to types of people flying, those who can very quickly do the math because of an ( shall we call it ) intellectual education and those who think in pictures or diagrams who have had a more practical education.

Both types have the mental capacity to do the calculations in normal flight however when the pressure is really on those with the practical education are the ones who adapt best a changing situation such as wind gradient because they are constantly updating the mental plot from the visual picture.

Those who use the maths and then expect it all to work are slower to adapt to changes.

There are pilots who can do both but these are usualy found flying fast jets for the military and not at flying clubs.

[Andy_P]

Having done a bit of flying instruction over the last twenty years I think your faith in the ability of pilots to do mental arithmetic while under the considerable pressure is a little wide of the mark.

There are to types of people flying, those who can very quickly do the math because of an ( shall we call it ) intellectual education and those who think in pictures or diagrams who have had a more practical education.

Both types have the mental capacity to do the calculations in normal flight however when the pressure is really on those with the practical education are the ones who adapt best a changing situation such as wind gradient because they are constantly updating the mental plot from the visual picture.

Those who use the maths and then expect it all to work are slower to adapt to changes.

There are pilots who can do both but these are usualy found flying fast jets for the military and not at flying clubs.

I am one of those that is hopeless at doing mental calculations. I managed maths whilst doing an engineering degree, so I cant be too stupid. But in my head, forget it. This is one thing that worries me about doing my PPL nav's.

[Pirke]

In any landing (forced, precaution or regular) don't leave sight of your target field. No calculations are necessary if you simply keep a visual.

[Pace]

Both types have the mental capacity to do the calculations in normal flight however when the pressure is really on those with the practical education are the ones who adapt best a changing situation such as wind gradient because they are constantly updating the mental plot from the visual picture.

A & C

I totally agree and to confirm that I will refer to a pilot I knew who was meticulous and ultra detailed in his pre planning, calculations and organisation.

His checks took forever no item rushed or missed but his brain although he was an extremely intelligent guy was one speed.
All was fine until one IMC flight when his destination and alternatives all went down.

He was left with no plans no details and having to work out things on the hoof with his one speed brain. Sadly a different speed and natural spatial awareness was required and he quickly got into a situation where he could not cope.

Thankfully he was assisted to a safe landing by ATC but shortly after packed flying in.

Plans go out the window and then you are left with your own ability to adjust to different circumstances. To me a good pilot will be planned and organised but still have he ability to multi task, always have good spatial awareness and the visual mental capacity to pick up or slow down his game at will.

The good pilot will always be assessing changing circumstances and situations and adjusting accordingly and will always be mentally ahead of the aircraft. He will already have a plan B in mind if plan A isn't working and will have the spatial awareness and capacity to change from one plan to the other at will and those plans will be in his mind not on a fly by numbers sheet of paper or tablet computer))

Pace

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Plans go out the window and then you are left with your own ability to adjust to different circumstances.
In those circumstances - IMC, destination and alternates down - my first level of fallback would be to be
assisted to a safe landing by ATC
So it sounds like that all went according to plan, actually?

[Pace]

GW
So it sounds like that all went according to plan, actually?

Accept that the experience of not having a plan or feeling in control scared him so much that he packed it in (( and I did know the guy and did try to dissuade him.
Getting ATC to help was a valid decision but its whats in someones mind and the fact that he no longer felt that he was in control ( although he was ) panicked him. I think by the time he had contacted ATC He was already panicked and that state lasted all the way to touchdown (sadly)
so what I am saying is you need to be bullet proof all round know your weaknesses and strengths and be aware and work on the weaker sides of your flying we all have them

Pace

[ChissayLuke]

Pirke makes a good point, imho.

Keep it visual; this obviates the need for brain capacity draining, expansive calculation at a time of potential great stress.