C205 catastrophic engine failure
Moderator
One of our contributors here, John Farley, who sadly passed away a few years ago, told me, on the topic of forced landings: If you don't need to get maximum glide performance to "make it", don't bother, point it where you think you could crash it, and don't crash when you get there. He told me that this was based upon his demonstrating power off landings in the Hawker Harrier - not a plane we would think of for power off landings. He told me that gliding approach speed was around 250 knots, but it was easy. (perhaps for a skilled Harrier pilot!).
An unconventional technique, I agree, but I have tried it and it works. I'll pick a close spot, perhaps below me, and do a fast descent/slip into it. I find it easier to manage drag, even increasing speed to increase drag, to achieve a precise touchdown, than to try to judge and perfect the positioning of turns in a gliding circuit approach at "glide speed" to a forced landing. I entirely accept that it dilutes/distracts training to a standard to teach a forced approach where speed is deliberately maintained to an "other than specified" speed. but it is also one more tool in the box, if conditions permit it's use.
While checking out an instructor in a PA-18 on skis a number of years ago, I required him to demonstrate forced landings. His judgement was poor. Each attempt became a "won't make it" in the late downwind to base area of the circuit he was flying due to poor judgement. And, he did not assure himself a suitable landing area in between (even for safety during the training). The farther he allowed himself to get from the landing spot (big circuit) the more likely that he would mis judge, and the more winds could affect the outcome either way. I demonstrated a tight slipping circuit, modulating the slip as I needed to for glidepath control (albeit steep), and touched down nicely on my selected spot. A tight gliding circuit, with some excess speed allows precision, and holding a reserve later into the final approach, reduces some factors which will affect success.
An unconventional technique, I agree, but I have tried it and it works. I'll pick a close spot, perhaps below me, and do a fast descent/slip into it. I find it easier to manage drag, even increasing speed to increase drag, to achieve a precise touchdown, than to try to judge and perfect the positioning of turns in a gliding circuit approach at "glide speed" to a forced landing. I entirely accept that it dilutes/distracts training to a standard to teach a forced approach where speed is deliberately maintained to an "other than specified" speed. but it is also one more tool in the box, if conditions permit it's use.
While checking out an instructor in a PA-18 on skis a number of years ago, I required him to demonstrate forced landings. His judgement was poor. Each attempt became a "won't make it" in the late downwind to base area of the circuit he was flying due to poor judgement. And, he did not assure himself a suitable landing area in between (even for safety during the training). The farther he allowed himself to get from the landing spot (big circuit) the more likely that he would mis judge, and the more winds could affect the outcome either way. I demonstrated a tight slipping circuit, modulating the slip as I needed to for glidepath control (albeit steep), and touched down nicely on my selected spot. A tight gliding circuit, with some excess speed allows precision, and holding a reserve later into the final approach, reduces some factors which will affect success.
Winds were reported light, but they shifted to favor the reciprocal runway indicating that windshear was lurking. And there's just about always some windshear; so better to have something to give away than be caught short.
Remember the forced landing advice is to aim one third into the field (implied at best glide speed). Aiming for the threshold you better have extra speed.
Really best glide speed is about maximizing field options and applies to still air (a rare and highly localised phenomenon aloft - I have an excellent wind display based on 3D accelerometer and compass sensors integrated with TAS to back this up).
Downwind and a bit slower expands your options. Upwind you will have to fly a bit faster and will not go as far.
Once you do have your field made, it's time to increase speed to have a cushion.
Remember the forced landing advice is to aim one third into the field (implied at best glide speed). Aiming for the threshold you better have extra speed.
Really best glide speed is about maximizing field options and applies to still air (a rare and highly localised phenomenon aloft - I have an excellent wind display based on 3D accelerometer and compass sensors integrated with TAS to back this up).
Downwind and a bit slower expands your options. Upwind you will have to fly a bit faster and will not go as far.
Once you do have your field made, it's time to increase speed to have a cushion.
Since nearly all my (airplane) approaches are at idle power all I would need to do is move the planned touchdown point further down the runway to have some margin in case I misjudged the difference in glide between idle and a real engine fail. (Those who always make shallow dragged-in approaches will have much more problem judging an engine fail circuit/pattern.)
Moderator
Since nearly all my (airplane) approaches are at idle power all I would need to do is move the planned touchdown point further down the runway to have some margin in case I misjudged the difference in glide between idle and a real engine fail. (Those who always make shallow dragged-in approaches will have much more problem judging an engine fail circuit/pattern.)
Thread Starter
Those critising the pilots approach fail to be cognisant of his experience and level of skill, there is more than one way of skinning a cat. Who could pour themselves a glass of water while performing a barrel roll, not many I venture, but it can been done, Bob Hoover. Chuck Yeager had to eject because he had neither the instrument flying skills nor an understanding of engine gyroscopic effects, all because he declined the instruction from the project pilot.
In our neck of the woods back in the old, old days one of the skill tests for a private license was to shut down the engine at a given height (and I mean shut down, mags off) and perform an engine out landing with touchdown as close as you could get to a marker on the runway, accuracy determined whether you passed, or not.
EXDAC, what do you teach for an engine failure pattern?
In our neck of the woods back in the old, old days one of the skill tests for a private license was to shut down the engine at a given height (and I mean shut down, mags off) and perform an engine out landing with touchdown as close as you could get to a marker on the runway, accuracy determined whether you passed, or not.
EXDAC, what do you teach for an engine failure pattern?
There is always someone who thinks they know better. Major engine failure, great situational awareness, controlled flight and engine out circuit to a safe (and smooth) landing. All critics please present themselves for a competition to see if they can do better.
In an aeroplane that they own, please.
Volunteers?
No? Well, there's a surprise.
In an aeroplane that they own, please.
Volunteers?
No? Well, there's a surprise.
I have no intention of failing the engine in either of my airplanes just to see how well I would handle it. I did win my club's recent spot landing contest with a simulated engine fail approach (idle power before base turn) that touched down 49 feet past the mark. Only the best one counted but my other attempts were 91 feet long and 50 feet short. I'm reasonably confident that I could handle an engine failure that left me in gliding range of a runway.
The hard part for me is accepting the less than 8:1 glide ratio after over 3,000 hours in gliders.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might suggest that airspeed control and pattern flown were quite satisfactory to achieve the desired goal. In addition, I would state that a superior pilot has flexibility in thinking ta adjust as appropriate to the circumstances at hand instead of blindly following the standard practice scenario.
I will add that for a complete loss of engine power, he did have near ideal circumstances.
Note that he used his extra speed to clear runway, after checking with ATC that this was acceptable.
Some seem to think blocking the runway until towed clear would have been better - the result if he'd had less speed.
Some seem to think blocking the runway until towed clear would have been better - the result if he'd had less speed.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Or if he had just been low on fuel......
Last edited by punkalouver; 7th Mar 2022 at 23:54.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by EXDAC
My evaluation of the demonstrated performance was not a criticism of what the pilot did, or the outcome. It was a comment on all those who seem to be saying he did it perfectly. Why not learn something from the discussion?
My evaluation of the demonstrated performance was not a criticism of what the pilot did, or the outcome. It was a comment on all those who seem to be saying he did it perfectly. Why not learn something from the discussion?
It was my impression from watching the whole sequence that he was well above best glide speed, only made it to the airport because it was well within max glide range, and made a rather poor job of speed control and pattern planning
I don't recall what I was taught with regards to flying a pattern for forced landings when I went through the local aero club in 1962 and I've been asking what you teach, but you seem rather reluctant. My military training taught very specific engine out patterns for the particular aircraft, whether it be for a T-34, reproduced below for the high altitude case, or a F-104, which I never flew. The procedure works a treat.
I've taught plenty of forced landings and the procedure from low key on was not that much different to what's shown above for the T-34. We started out teaching a standard pattern but if we later created a simulated forced landing for a student the only grading item was: did they end up in a position and configuration from which they could safely land the aircraft. If they used the standard pattern: great! If they found another route that led to a safe landing: also great!
Moderator
If they used the standard pattern: great! If they found another route that led to a safe landing: also great!
Pick the touchdown point and fly a controlled speed descent to touchdown at the chosen point with minimum energy. There is no defined path and no defined configuration. Both need to be adjusted to maintain the sight picture that will result in touchdown at the selected point. That technique will work just as well for an off airport landing as for a 10,000 ft paved runway. I don't believe the pilot shown in the video had any clue where the aircraft was going to touchdown.
A touch down with minimum energy at the chosen point will allow the aircraft to roll clear of the runway if the touchdown point was well chosen. However, rolling clear of the runway is very low priority.
The video pilot was very fortunate to be in range of a long runway. I doubt he would have survived an off airport landing.
A touch down with minimum energy at the chosen point will allow the aircraft to roll clear of the runway if the touchdown point was well chosen. However, rolling clear of the runway is very low priority.
The video pilot was very fortunate to be in range of a long runway. I doubt he would have survived an off airport landing.
Last edited by EXDAC; 8th Mar 2022 at 21:26. Reason: corrected "of" to "off"
"The video pilot was very fortunate to be in range of a long runway. I doubt he would have survived an of airport landing"
I doubt he would have used that technique for an off-airfielf landing.
I doubt he would have used that technique for an off-airfielf landing.
Moderator
Touchdown with minimum energy yes, and controlled speed descent to to touchdown yes. But, that does not mean it is necessary to aim for minimum energy any earlier than necessary in the approach. If the power off approach is managed with excess speed, when excess speed does not matter, then the speed is bled to minimum energy just prior to touchdown, that's okay. Aside from going needlessly off the end of an overly long landing area, getting down safely is the objective, the finesse is secondary, and artistic merit points hold little value.
I opine that the pilot would have applied a different and suitable technique for a different landing surface. I would like to receive the benefit of the doubt so I'm prepared to extend it to other pilots in the absence of any other information (and a fast approach/long landing is not it).
Now, for a forced approach onto water (which I have done), it is wise to include a stop as close to shore, or helpful vessel in the plan. So as often, broad thinking is needed, and simple "rules" will have exceptions.
I opine that the pilot would have applied a different and suitable technique for a different landing surface. I would like to receive the benefit of the doubt so I'm prepared to extend it to other pilots in the absence of any other information (and a fast approach/long landing is not it).
Now, for a forced approach onto water (which I have done), it is wise to include a stop as close to shore, or helpful vessel in the plan. So as often, broad thinking is needed, and simple "rules" will have exceptions.
So far we've seen a pilot who has completed a successful landing into his chosen field after catastrophic engine failure, he's had the presence of mind to communicate well and think of things outside his immediate concerns, and no doubt he's also been examined on FL's into different places during his initial and subsequent tests.
There are many factors involved in the success or otherwise of a FL, especially when the available terrain for landing is variable, but I couldn't question this pilot's competency or presence of mind as a factor - in my view, there's nothing in what we've seen here that could lead to a conclusion that he wouldn't do a good job elsewhere.
One needs to bear in mind that this is an example of just one actual - successful - FL this pilot has concluded in specific circumstances. While it's fine to review and discuss - indeed it's good to use such examples to learn from - criticism such as suggesting he wouldn't survive an 'of [sic] airport landing' is a leap so far that, maybe, it says more about the deliverer than the recipient?
FP.
Go back to the military engine out approach diagram posted earlier, Can you find any part of the video's approach that comes close to the approach path that shown in that diagram?
Which parts of the video would you use to tell your students - this is how you should make an approach and landing with an engine failure?
It is my opinion that primacy will rule. If you never practice idle power approaches to landing at a preselected spot you will not be able to do that when the engine fails.
I'll concede that this video may not be representative of the pilot's ability to perform a safe off airport landing. I'll revise my comment to say - In my opinion this pilot would not have survived an off airport landing using the technique shown in the video.
Thread Starter
In my opinion this pilot would not have survived an off airport landing using the technique shown in the video.
I don't believe the pilot shown in the video had any clue where the aircraft was going to touchdown
Go back to the military engine out approach diagram posted earlier, Can you find any part of the video's approach that comes close to the approach path that shown in that diagram?
Pick the touchdown point and fly a controlled speed descent to touchdown at the chosen point with minimum energy. There is no defined path and no defined configuration. Both need to be adjusted to maintain the sight picture that will result in touchdown at the selected point. That technique will work just as well for an off airport landing as for a 10,000 ft paved runway
When I did a flight test with a regulatory pilot with 60 hours in the log for the award of a CPL scholarship he gave me an engine off at 3,000 in the C150, was positioned on a high, high final for a grass cross runway, planted it right on the numbers, full flap 40°, his critique was be careful of wind shear, a valuable piece of advice not mentioned previously, aiming to touch down as close as possible to the boundary fence of a short paddock is fraught if the sight picture becomes suddenly starts rising (undershooting), better to aim to land deeper into the paddock and run off the end at slow speed.
I prefer to use the same landing technique for an 8,000 ft runway as for a 600 ft dirt strip. That technique starts with selecting the touchdown point and everything else flows from that. If there is no selected touchdown point then there is no aim point and no possibility of establishing a stable sight picture.
I simply do not understand why anyone would think that coming over the runway threshold that low and floating about 2,000 ft down the runway in ground effect would be held up as an example of how to handle an engine out landing.