Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

forced landing - THE FIELD CHOSES YOU!

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

forced landing - THE FIELD CHOSES YOU!

Old 13th Jul 2015, 20:04
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brentwood Essex
Posts: 18
forced landing

Unbelievable and have seen it before, how he didn't see that perfect field dead ahead of him I'll never understand! As for the reasons for the lack of power......if that's true that he hadn't the throttle pushed home then ..........lost for words!
keni010 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 20:25
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,548
Yes....BUT he walked away from that tree arrival because his aircraft was under control! No point in belabouring all his stupid mistakes, he got the important one right.

EFATO? steep turn back to the tarmac, nose a tad high...surprise! you got the important one wrong. End of your story.
mary meagher is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 20:26
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
it demonstrates one thing that even in a glide you are master of where the aircraft goes! Why choose trees when as you said there was a field and even a motorway to the right anywhere but those trees which this pilot CHOSE to land in by allowing himself to be a passenger to what could have been a fatal event.

The only reason the pilot got away with it was the right wing took the brunt of the collision with the tree the fuselage impacting a much softer section another six feet to the right and the pilot probably would have been killed and was incredibly lucky.
Yes Mary I agree the most important thing was to keep it flying but even there I am not sure the speed was controlled as the aircraft seemed fast in a descent which kept it flying more than any planned inputs from this pilot (( who didn't seem to be controlling anything

addendum

Looking more closely at the pilots line of sight I do now think he was looking at that wide road to land on but went through the centreline and didn't have enough height to get back onto the motorway while on a continuous descent into the trees very lucky guy. But that is the point realising that things were not working on plan A the pilot should have been already aware of the field on the left as plan B and gone for that when plan A was no longer working.
The motorway would have worked if he had made a steeper bank while pushing the nose over and landed on the side with the traffic flow rather than against it

a good example of fixating on one point while being oblivious to other options

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 13th Jul 2015 at 21:05.
Pace is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 01:10
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 600
Well... today I chose the fields - both runways. After an hour of practice auto rotations in the helicopter onto one, I sure had trouble getting the practice forced approaches right in the plane onto the other! I kept landing long! It just shows the value of practice!
9 lives is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:00
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,340
Originally Posted by mary meagher View Post
Yes....BUT he walked away from that tree arrival because his aircraft was under control! No point in belabouring all his stupid mistakes, he got the important one right.

EFATO? steep turn back to the tarmac, nose a tad high...surprise! you got the important one wrong. End of your story.
What she said

One of the problems with flight training is that a lot of the exercises are not evidence based, just a result of myths, historical prejudice and flight school isms mindlessly passed down through the years.

The whole forced approached exercise as taught by flight school is a particularly egregious example of this in that

- The fact that the majority of engine failures are caused by the pilot is not represented anywhere in the training

- The fact that a partial engine failure is more likely to occur than a total engine failure bit this scenario is almost never discussed let alone practiced

- And with particular reference to this thread, despite the emphasis placed on field selection in flight training the accident statistics clearly show that the fatal accident are almost never about choosing the "wrong" field they are due to either loosing control of the airplane while maneuvering to a field usually resulting in the stall/spin/die trifecta, or they totally miss the field and hit a solid object at flying speed while still well above the earth.

Yes not causing the engine to stop and if it does get it going again is very important, but as Step and others pointed out judging the glide so that the airplane arrives at the desired spot is what really matters if the engine becomes un-interested in further toil.

The good news is you don't have to do PFL's to get good at judging the gliding flight path, you just have to, when practicable, close the throttle on a regular landing at various parts of the circuit. That plus regular inflight review of the immediate vital actions in the event of engine failures and paying attention to the preventable engine failure causes will be all the preparation you need
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 05:21
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Step Turn

Delta V, I've posted a comment about shock cooling here: "NJK blew a jug today"
Fair enough but I'd contend there is a world of difference between a PFL as commonly conducted by flight instructors (the ones in my experience anyway) and the business of glider tugging.

On one of my more recent biannual rides I grumbled about this to the instructor and he, in good part, opted for the course of action proposed by BPF;
The good news is you don't have to do PFL's to get good at judging the gliding flight path, you just have to, when practicable, close the throttle on a regular landing at various parts of the circuit.
I was given a particular, quite restricted, section of the runway to arrive on, told that when, at circuit height, I judged I could make that, to close the throttle and to not touch it again until we were on the ground. I didn't miss.

I'd like to make one last observation on all of this and it has to do with how the circuit is flown. I see many fly long final approaches which gives very little latitude for adjustment should the need arise. Tighter, squarer circuits seem to me to be inherently more adjustable to allow for contingencies on the way down. This was clearly illustrated to me some years ago at a timed-circuit-spot-landing competition at a local field. Those who flew long rectangular circuits may have made the line but never came close to making the time. The squarer circuit could be tightened or relaxed on downwind to hit both time and line targets simultaneously.
DeltaV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 06:12
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,499
Regarding Pace's video (posted by Pace, I'm not holding him responsible for it).

IF that was a genuine first solo...

(1)The instructor should not have allowed the student to be fitting cameras for a first solo.

(2) The instructor should have ensured far better training about field selection and handling a power failure.


Personally, whatever else it is, I don't think it's a first solo. But I agree completely with Pace that it's an example of very poor aircraft management.



DeltaV - it's a compromise isn't it. A long enough "final" to stabilise the aircraft, and enough of a turn, and a close enough turn, to allow adjustment. Not squarer however. Much easier with the military style constant aspect circuit than the civilian rectangular ones.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 06:55
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
...it's a compromise isn't it. A long enough "final" to stabilise the aircraft, and enough of a turn, and a close enough turn, to allow adjustment. Not squarer however. Much easier with the military style constant aspect circuit than the civilian rectangular ones.
Yes, of course. I like and use the constant aspect approach but I used 'squarer' to differentiate from the more usual, distinctly rectangular one which, it seems to me, overly relies on having power to adjust the path. Not necessarily available in a forced landing situation.
DeltaV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 07:19
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,548
Long rectangular circuits/patterns are for the convenience of power traffic sequencing, and so ATC can see or be told who is where and what is planned.

Gliders in the UK no longer stick to long rectangular circuits, if not sharing traffic patterns with power aircraft. We fly downwind to assess the situation, and then CUT THE CORNER. This is called the diagonal leg. The base leg hardly exists at all. The RAF has used this for years and it is called by you chaps the constant aspect approach. You never loose sight of the landing area. You never loose situation awareness.

In America gliders usually have to share patterns with power traffic, and so must fly that long downwind, 90 degree turn onto base, 90 degree turn onto final. Works fine unless the donkey declines to cooperate, in which case you inform the traffic and cut the corner anyway.
mary meagher is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 09:30
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,499
Personally I'd love to see the whole world go over to a 6 minute CA circuit - and when I'm on my own at a farmstrip, it's what I fly.

Won't happen, but I can dream.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 09:48
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,030
Genghis the Engineer
Personally I'd love to see the whole world go over to a 6 minute CA circuit
I could not agree more, the sooner those cross country size circuits are banned the better.
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 12:34
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
In my eyes the detail or who should have been here or there etc is irrelevant
This incident highlights the problems of having multiple settings which can only add to confusion and the option for a mistake to be made.

That is why we should all move to using a standard QNH and stop clinging on to archaic habits from the past which aviation is great at doing.

Less options less options for a mistake and there should only be two settings QNH and FLs I would also go for a uniform transition ALT/level like they do in the USA

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2015, 07:51
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 62
Posts: 0
The single engine and glider options the same it is just that the "powered" pilots have a few more obstacles in their path to a successful outcome. The first is the drag of your average spam can. The next is its speed. Then the weight and lastly pilot training and accepted technique.

Let's rip into the last one's first. Power pilots generally fly too fast. Their 65 for everything is wrong. It is especially unhelpful for a forced landing. Get the speeds right and then you'll have better glide and a shorter stopping distance. Next we have the things that are not taught as standard and these include low level "S" turns and side-slips. These convenient additions to your armoury will allow you to make last minute corrections to your glide.

The poorer glide performance of a powered aircraft means that your field selection options may be limited. But like a glider, they will vary with height from straight ahead to an ever increasing arc left and right of the aircraft. I'm not that sure that all pilots know what height is required for 180. I need about 500' for a 90 degree turn and just under 1,800' for a 180 (a heavy twin). Knowing what you can do means firstly you will not waste time looking where you can't go and secondly, you might plan your climb-out so your safety is not compromised if you have an engine failure. I remember "field-hopping" on final glides. Into wind I carried very little margin but downwind about 300' so I could do a 180. But my path was by fields that had already been selected.

Lastly, low flying rules. Do they apply to flight training where the purpose of the detail was to teach forced landings? I considered that the exemption in Rule 5 3.a.ii applied. Not all approaches to land have to end in a landing.

PM

ps. It is good to see Mary posting. I remember when she first started gliding at Booker. We tooks bets on what she was going to prang next. Needless to say we all lost, but our stakes were wisely invested by the winners in a beer rental scheme.

Last edited by Piltdown Man; 11th Oct 2015 at 09:15.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2015, 03:46
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rennes
Posts: 168
When I started training, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, a favourite instructor trick after just three or four hours' dual was to pull the throttle closed at around 150' AGL and bawl "ENGINE FAILURE" into one's right ear. The aim (successful) was to din it into one by instinct (i) to push over firmly the instant things went quiet up front; and (ii) to figure out how to get the thing on the ground again without running out of runway. These were invariably practice EFATOs to a full stop.

They also didn't let people go solo until they had demonstrated proficiency in sideslips.

The payoff, for me, came a quarter of a century later, when things did go silent up front.
Blind Squirrel is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2015, 11:03
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 866
Some student pilots are not capable of interpreting a CA approach so you also need to be able to also teach low key 1000ft point glide approach/PFLs. In most cases low ley is a better starting point as it also teaches better height judgement. Should I spend 5 hours of someones money of something they cant grasp or spend five hours practicing something they have grasped and are completly happy with?

Instructors need to be flexible and teach for the student not for the instructor.

While I agree that oval short circuits are best practice its not possible to always fly them in a circuit where you may have 4 different schools mostly flying squares. In fact ovals on base can be dangerous with low wing aircraft as you have not got a clear view of final approach, this isnt a problem in a disciplined well controlled military circuit where all a/c are turning at the same point.

The mistake the pilot seems to have made with the EFATO is selecting an area with a poor undershoot(as well as landing area and overshoot). Very few instructors teach undershoot awareness, the ideal landing area(not field) has a good undershoot because if you make a mistake thats where you are going. When you teach selection of a landing area(not field) you should also teach selection with a good undershoot area as the undershoot can pose a bigger problem that the landing area. Failing to reach the chosen landing area is the most common error(TEM)

The PFL is poorly taught as most instructors attempt to teach the whole exercise in one go. Before you get to the PFL you need to teach landing area selection and landing run orientation. This can be started in the early lessons while transiting to and from the training area. The next stage is to demonstrate the procedure without any checks just concentrating on flying the procedure looking out and engine considerations. This needs to be started around 2500ft AGL. Give the student TIME! (from 2000ft you have around 3 minutes)

It is not nessecarry to continue a PFL below 500ft agl, if you are unable to determine from this height whether you can get in or not you must be engaged in some sort of split xxse or just scraping in manoevre. Setting a 500ft limit sets a better example for the student who will need to practice this while solo and may not see that electric cable on the perimeter hedge. The place to pratice below 500ft is the airfield. More efficient use of expensive air time can be spent in getting to a 500ft point every time where there is no doubt that a reasonable arrival can be made without comprimising the aircraft stucture. More emphasis also needs to be placed on the teaching of the reality of an off airfield arrival EG, fire, obstructed exits, inversion, being trapped, breaking windows, pax evacuation etc.. There is much more to a off airfield arrival than some text books and instructors would have you believe!

Why is there a problem with having an interior cam for first solo? Its a great teaching aid and debriefing aid- for those of you who do debrief after first solo (ha ha). Fitting anything to the outside of the aircraft without approval would have some legal implications especially if it dropped off!

Last edited by Pull what; 20th Nov 2015 at 11:13.
Pull what is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 05:17
  #36 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 58
Posts: 3,915
Is was checking out a pilot in the 180HP Super Cub on skis a few weeks back. After I packed a "runway" in the fresh snow for him (which was more than a km long - lots of room!), we did some circuits. He did okay on the new type. As a part of any type training, I train forced approaches to a stop on the surface. So that was next, with a briefing. He mentioned being an instructor, so I looked forward to disciplined skills. They were, but missed the mark pretty badly.

With a briefing, and a 3, 2, 1 count, I gently closed the throttle, and the frozen lake "runway" approached. I had positioned him at the entry into the mid left downwind to our runway. He focused on his training, and what he would train his students - but no way that would have got us near our runway, nor even to a suitable landing area elsewhere. When he thought he was too high, he turned away from our runway to loose altitude - he did! Without my calling an overshoot with power, the plane would not have survived. He seemed rattled.

I tried to figure out what had gone wrong (beyond the obvious 270 degree right turn off the left downwind to base , he's supposed to be able to teach me forced approaches. I said "let me try".

From the same position overhead, I pulled the power in myself. I followed John Farley's advice, and pointed it where I want to crash, and then just not crash it. The "pointing" involved a turn all the way around to align on final. The "not crashing" part suggested that a good slip would get me down, without building up too much speed to dissipate in the flare. It seemed to work, with the fluffing of snow on touchdown being my reward.

My charge seemed stunned, with expressions of amazement that a slipped turn to the the forced approach area below was even possible. We practiced for an hour, and his skills grew rapidly. He's rethinking "gliding" now.

I resist the notion that an aircraft should be flown at "best glide" speed, if "making" the field is not the primary concern. I would rather point it down, and get it to a suitable final approach close by, with certainty, and then rid myself of any un needed speed as a secondary effort. The worst is I carry too much speed over the fence, and go off the far end of my selected "spot". That's much better than not making my selected spot at all, and crashing at an unsuitable place, which was not my selection.

I hope those training forced approaches also train to just get it down, without stretching a cross country to get there, when a suitable place is very nearby. Power off speed management takes on a different form, but also valuable....
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 13:19
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,016
That's a really interesting post, as, analysing my own flying, when I do an actual glide to land (when I find I'm a bit high or fast on a tight final turn, for example) that's exactly what I do: point it at the touchdown point and then control the speed as required. Yet when I do a PFL, I obsess over trimming for best glide speed first, as taught by my instructors. I'll go away and practise...
tmmorris is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 14:08
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,383
Originally Posted by tmmorris View Post
Yet when I do a PFL, I obsess over trimming for best glide speed first, as taught by my instructors.
I think I've always understood that as getting the speed under control as the first thing you do so that you don't waste energy whilst looking around for a field, planning a circuit, restarting the engine etc. Then, surely, you do whatever it takes to get into the field.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 17:07
  #39 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 58
Posts: 3,915
getting the speed under control as the first thing you do so that you don't waste energy
If you need to "make it to shore" or "make it over the mountains", yes.

However, I would rather make it with certainty to a closer adequate landing area, than maybe not make it to the [better] more distant landing area, and risk a total crash short of it, because I could not stretch the glide - started by fixating on the glide speed. Thus, making the spot will be the first thing I focus on - right to close final, with speed control erring to too fast/high until the bitter end.

You can always dump speed at the end. Most planes can be slipped right onto the surface with full pedal (the Super Cub on skis did have to be straightened out before touchdown. Drag increases as a square of the speed, so if you have too much speed, the drag you create to rid yourself of the speed will be even more effective. I can always get rid of at least some of too much glide approach speed/altitude, but I cannot recreate it once surrendered!

At the end, (pun intended) I'd rather misjudge, so as to off the far end of the landing spot at 20MPH and dent the plane, than to stall short into the stone wall at 60MPH, and destroy myself and the plane!

When I'm water flying, "best glide speed" will be out the window, unless I'm over forest or ragged mountains. The speed at which greatest distance of altitude lost is achieved, is somewhat more slow than the speed from which a safe power off water landing can be made. If you come into the flare in a seaplane at the "best glide speed", you're in for a very bad splash!
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 18:18
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 765
Back in the fifties when I was learning to fly Tiger Moths and old ex fighter pilot gave the advice that in the event of engine failure, I should pick three inline fields with low hedges that were aligned more or less into wind and try for the middle one.

If you screw up and undershoot you get the near one and if you overshoot you get the far one. If you hit the hedge it will probably not kill you.

It worked for me some 20 years later when flying Chipmunks and an engine disintegrated on me.
Lou Scannon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.