Originally Posted by
foxmoth
The examples I gave earlier (Southampton and Bembridge) have the problem that the "major obstacles" are all in front and to the side of you so the only real option may be a turn back (or at least a turn of over 90 degrees), if you CAN land straight ahead then I certainly agree with not turning back, but what to you do when that option is just not realistically there?
I was waiting for that question and it is a reasonable one. First off it speaks to the desirability of having a plan before the engine stops, not after, one of the reasons I make my students do a take off brief before every takeoff. This is especially important for difficult airports where a quick decision on angling the aircraft left or right after the engine failure may have a profound impact on the success of the manoever.
I think it is also important to point out that a uniform 9 Gee de-acceleration from 60 to 0 knots requires a ground run of about 25 feet or one fuselage length. The flying schools IMO do students a dis-service because they leave the impression that you
have to have some nice long smooth field in order to have a "successful" forced approach. The reality is a survivable landing only requires that the aircraft be upright with and with an approximately level pitch attitude at a low airspeed and have at least a small run after touchdown to moderate the de-acceleration forces ( ie not a head on impact with a solid immovable object)
The best predictor of success for actual real world forced approaches has been that the aircraft was in control when it impacted the ground and that it hit at a spot of the pilots choosing, not a random area.
Finally do not forget that the accident statistics suggest that up to 80 % of all engine failures
are directly caused by the pilots actions or inactions so the best way to deal with an engine failure is not to cause the engine to fail in the first place.