C205 catastrophic engine failure
Moderator
I prefer to use the same landing technique for an 8,000 ft runway as for a 600 ft dirt strip.
My first forced landing (of five over the years) was a gliding approach from a wide downwind (though a landing had not been intended at that airport, until it coincidentally quit then). The runway was Toronto Island Airport, and there is water at the very end of that runway. My aim point was not the end of the runway, it was about one third along, in case I undershot. I was not embarrassed to roll out long in a 182 on a 3000 foot runway. I was safely down with no splash. When I land there with power from time to time, I pride myself on not tying up traffic, I clear at the intended taxiway neatly each time, with no protracted time on the runway.
There is always someone who thinks that the pilot who made a safe landing after an engine failure could have done better. I'm a glider pilot, too.
it's not the same. I say again, it's not the same. Gliders are always landed without the use of an engine ( yes, OK, some motor glider trainers may not be but that's what we are discussing here)
I've put gliders in fields, not so many once I got better at soaring flight. I've put a powered aircraft onto an airfield after an engine failure. Just the once. It had my heart rate somewhat elevated.
It's not the same. Expectation with a powered aircraft is to arrive at destination and land with the benefit of engine, flaps, the possibility of a go around. In a glider there is always some possibility of an out landing, but it's made for that.
This person landed neatly after a controlled circuit, without the benefit of airbrakes, or a good glide ratio. Flaps? Maybe available, maybe not. Nothing broken, no unseemly rush or panic.
It's a pity he will have to buy a new engine. If he had wrapped the aircraft up in a heap of bits and got out unhurt he could have made an insurance claim.
But he didn't. Good landing under control. But hey, someone always knows better.
Did I mention, it's not the same?
it's not the same. I say again, it's not the same. Gliders are always landed without the use of an engine ( yes, OK, some motor glider trainers may not be but that's what we are discussing here)
I've put gliders in fields, not so many once I got better at soaring flight. I've put a powered aircraft onto an airfield after an engine failure. Just the once. It had my heart rate somewhat elevated.
It's not the same. Expectation with a powered aircraft is to arrive at destination and land with the benefit of engine, flaps, the possibility of a go around. In a glider there is always some possibility of an out landing, but it's made for that.
This person landed neatly after a controlled circuit, without the benefit of airbrakes, or a good glide ratio. Flaps? Maybe available, maybe not. Nothing broken, no unseemly rush or panic.
It's a pity he will have to buy a new engine. If he had wrapped the aircraft up in a heap of bits and got out unhurt he could have made an insurance claim.
But he didn't. Good landing under control. But hey, someone always knows better.
Did I mention, it's not the same?
I see the situation differently. If I have 8000 feet of good runway available, I'll make a darned good job of a nice landing, knowing that I have less control over the touchdown point than I would have had with power available. If I have 600 feet of dirt, I know that I can get it on the ground, but it may be messy.
Yes, you did, but I don't know why. Selection of a touchdown point and using the sight picture to land at that point is a technique that is equally applicable to gliders, airplanes with power, and airplanes after loss of power.
Many post ago you challenged me to a competition. I gave you my results. What were yours?
Many post ago you challenged me to a competition. I gave you my results. What were yours?
Yes, you did, but I don't know why. Selection of a touchdown point and using the sight picture to land at that point is a technique that is equally applicable to gliders, airplanes with power, and airplanes after loss of power.
Many post ago you challenged me to a competition. I gave you my results. What were yours?
Many post ago you challenged me to a competition. I gave you my results. What were yours?
We do our spot landings from the overhead, but from downwind works too. Like I said, it's not the same. I had a for real progressive engine failure in a C172, flying a hold with a student. Didn't actually stop until we were on the ground. It's still harder than doing it for fun, but like I said, there's always someone who knows better.
Thread Starter
What we don't seem to agree on is whether someone who used this technique to land on a 6,600 ft runway would be able to use a completely different technique to land off airport.
I prefer to use the same landing technique for an 8,000 ft runway as for a 600 ft dirt strip
How in the world can you judge from a video what a pilot is, or not, capable of. Would you presume from this video that the pilot doesn't know how to fly a circuit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyBDEG9dg-Q
how does that work when ATC asks you to keep your speed up on final when there is a jet behind you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyBDEG9dg-Q
how does that work when ATC asks you to keep your speed up on final when there is a jet behind you.
"My statement that "I prefer to use the same landing technique for an 8,000 ft runway as for a 600 ft dirt strip" was for landings with available."
Landing on a mere 1700m runway, with a 150m requirement in nil headwind, and no parallel taxiway, I'd Bea nuisance if I always touched down on the numbers, then taxied.
In a strong wind straight down R23, with R06 having a displaced threshold, I once touched down on the upsidedown 06 numbers.
It's useful to be able to vary what you do after your first few solo approaches.:-)
Landing on a mere 1700m runway, with a 150m requirement in nil headwind, and no parallel taxiway, I'd Bea nuisance if I always touched down on the numbers, then taxied.
In a strong wind straight down R23, with R06 having a displaced threshold, I once touched down on the upsidedown 06 numbers.
It's useful to be able to vary what you do after your first few solo approaches.:-)
Moderator
The extrapolation being that if I do it the same way on the long and short runways with available power I would also do it the same way after an engine failure.
A successful out of norm approach under emergency conditions could be considered "deviance" from proper process... Yes? So we have deviance, and we're agreeing to not "normalize" it. It was acknowledged as deviating from the proper way to do it, not ideal, and not a new training element, but not criticized either. I don't like normalization of deviance, but under extreme circumstances, I can accept considered deviance.
There are different approaches. Sure, in the circuit to a standard airport runway, they should be the same, other than maybe purposefully landing long. But, When I teach on floats, many new factors are introduced, and a few common factors pretty well abandoned. After a reconnaissance overflight, and water check, I may direct a pilot to fly between trees to tuck it in tight to shore, or to drag it along, and chop power at a certain point, to get around the corner to more calm water. So if a pilot employed a similar odd technique on land for an emergency, and could justify why, I would consider, rather than dismiss their thoughts....
Well I'm glad at least that you acknowledge that. However, I don't think you have ever explained why the technique demonstrated in the video should be held up as an example of how to fly an engine out approach.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
There are runways over ten thousand feet long, At what point can we stop treating them like a 600’ strip if power was lost.
The whole idea doesn’t make sense.
If I had been there in that aircraft, there is no way I would treat a 6,000’ runway like a 600’ strip in such a situation. Imagine being at best glide speed and setting yourself up to touchdown about 1-200 feet from the threshold of a 6000’ runway. Raise your hand if you have ever misjudged a practice scenario and discovered that you were not going to make the field you chose.
If you have plenty of extra runway. Keep some extra energy. Some, not a lot.
The whole idea doesn’t make sense.
If I had been there in that aircraft, there is no way I would treat a 6,000’ runway like a 600’ strip in such a situation. Imagine being at best glide speed and setting yourself up to touchdown about 1-200 feet from the threshold of a 6000’ runway. Raise your hand if you have ever misjudged a practice scenario and discovered that you were not going to make the field you chose.
If you have plenty of extra runway. Keep some extra energy. Some, not a lot.
Last edited by punkalouver; 10th Mar 2022 at 17:38.
Moderator
I have noticed (and experienced) that selecting, identifying, and then maintaining an aim point for touchdown is a little easier on a small runway, and occasionally easier off runway, depending upon the surface. A big runway with stripes can nearly give a GA pilot a form of empty field myopia. Unless there's a particular visible different spot (like a odd skid mark, or off coloured path repair) the mix of asphalt and stripes can have a confusing checkerboard effect - I lost my spot, which one? While a turf runway may have a bald spot, or odd fence post beside which is unique, and an obvious aim point you can momentarily look away from, and then find again. When I teach skis on ice, I'll refer to a small crack in the ice or snowmobile track, and land just past. When I have taught on paved runways, it's actually been more difficult to direct the student to what I see as a good aim point; "aim for the beginning of the second stripe past the piano keys...." "Um... one... two... um...". When I teach off asphalt; "see that bald spot 200 feet from the fence? Aim for it." And, that spot is repeatable for circuits and consistency.
That's not an excuse for poor speed control for a normal, power available landing, but as I have said, I'm entirely okay if a pilot allows themself a decent excess of glide approach speed when the landing area is not constrained, and they know that they can bleed it off...
That's not an excuse for poor speed control for a normal, power available landing, but as I have said, I'm entirely okay if a pilot allows themself a decent excess of glide approach speed when the landing area is not constrained, and they know that they can bleed it off...
Thread Starter
Some C205 data. No flap approach 78 – 87 kts, short field 40° flap 72 kts. Manual gives no best glide speed. Why no flaps in this event? They’re electric, mmmmm, enough battery left to do the job?, or do I keep the radio running for coms with ATC? Decisions, decisions, guess we could give the pilot flak for no mayday or pan (just kidding, ATC was under no misapprehension as to what was occurring).
By my reconning and measurement the chap touched down 2,100 feet into the 6,600 foot runway, close enough to the suggested one third in my book. If anyone wants to complain they need to bring their own thumb tack along upon which to sit
Juan Browne, commentator of the following video, started his flying career as a teenager. He bought his first airplane when he was 15 years old, and has bought and sold dozens of airplanes since.
He earned his A&P license right after graduating high school, then attended college on a ROTC scholarship. After graduation, he was commissioned in the Air Force and attended Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at Williams Air Force Base.
After UPT, Juan became a T-37 Instructor Pilot at Mather Air Force Base. His next assignment was flying the C-141, and he quickly rose to Aircraft Commander, flying all over the world, nonstop using air refueling.
He next flew C-130 aircraft with the Reno Air National Guard, and finally secured a job as an airline pilot with American.
Type Rated DC-9, 320, 757, 767, 777
Owns and flies a private Cessna 310.
Posted his credentials to give credibility to his view. His attaboy view.
By my reconning and measurement the chap touched down 2,100 feet into the 6,600 foot runway, close enough to the suggested one third in my book. If anyone wants to complain they need to bring their own thumb tack along upon which to sit
Juan Browne, commentator of the following video, started his flying career as a teenager. He bought his first airplane when he was 15 years old, and has bought and sold dozens of airplanes since.
He earned his A&P license right after graduating high school, then attended college on a ROTC scholarship. After graduation, he was commissioned in the Air Force and attended Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at Williams Air Force Base.
After UPT, Juan became a T-37 Instructor Pilot at Mather Air Force Base. His next assignment was flying the C-141, and he quickly rose to Aircraft Commander, flying all over the world, nonstop using air refueling.
He next flew C-130 aircraft with the Reno Air National Guard, and finally secured a job as an airline pilot with American.
Type Rated DC-9, 320, 757, 767, 777
Owns and flies a private Cessna 310.
Posted his credentials to give credibility to his view. His attaboy view.
Nice job. But I have to ask, why is it not possible to have good natured and non judgmental discussion of what happened and what might have been done differently or better, without a chorus of comments basically saying “shut up, no one died, good outcome, I suppose you think you could have done better”?
I look on all of these as a learning opportunity despite the fact that I’m certain I would not have done anything like as well as this pilot.
I look on all of these as a learning opportunity despite the fact that I’m certain I would not have done anything like as well as this pilot.
"Because of the successful outcome, I am left with a large bill to repair the aircraft and return to flying."
An expression involving blessings and counting springs to mind.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the situation, all good choices, I would say.
My personal preference would be another technique, though that's maybe because I fly the C172s, where the aircraft does allow for this.
Stay high until your touch-down aiming is roughly 45 degrees down in front of you. Then full flaps and dive with some 45-60 degrees nose-down. With the C172 barn-doors out, the speed goes up to the max full flaps speed (granted, 1 kt over .....). Near the ground, round out and let the speed bleed off very quickly (the barn doors, from 92 down to 40-50 goes really fast) and subsequently settle. With some practice, you can easily reach a repeated accuracy of "within 50 feet". It's also relatively insensitive to wind speeds (compared to a "normal" glide-in). A good opportunity to practice this technique, is the exercise to "close the throttle on your own discretion" and land at the intended spot. It needs some muscle-power to overcome the out-of-trim during round-out and settling, though.
I did this many moons ago, with my first exam. There was the initial mental tension from the examiner, "what's this guy doing", and then some high-pitched squeaking noises after initiating the dive, though, when I explained him during the dive, the speed would be OK, he relaxed. I passed ;-)
One more option to control the settling is to have full flaps and just before the intended landing spot raise the flaps. Better do this with a mechanical flap lever. This may give a hard-landing, so it'll need a careful "stable close to the ground floating", before doing so. Though, in an emergency, with little landing distance available, it's giving you the opportunity to avoid the "float forever" and get (IE force) the aircraft on the ground and be able to brake, etc. And, at the same time, reducing the undershoot risk, since you know, you have a trick available to force the aircraft on the ground, and can keep up the speed a little more.
My personal preference would be another technique, though that's maybe because I fly the C172s, where the aircraft does allow for this.
Stay high until your touch-down aiming is roughly 45 degrees down in front of you. Then full flaps and dive with some 45-60 degrees nose-down. With the C172 barn-doors out, the speed goes up to the max full flaps speed (granted, 1 kt over .....). Near the ground, round out and let the speed bleed off very quickly (the barn doors, from 92 down to 40-50 goes really fast) and subsequently settle. With some practice, you can easily reach a repeated accuracy of "within 50 feet". It's also relatively insensitive to wind speeds (compared to a "normal" glide-in). A good opportunity to practice this technique, is the exercise to "close the throttle on your own discretion" and land at the intended spot. It needs some muscle-power to overcome the out-of-trim during round-out and settling, though.
I did this many moons ago, with my first exam. There was the initial mental tension from the examiner, "what's this guy doing", and then some high-pitched squeaking noises after initiating the dive, though, when I explained him during the dive, the speed would be OK, he relaxed. I passed ;-)
One more option to control the settling is to have full flaps and just before the intended landing spot raise the flaps. Better do this with a mechanical flap lever. This may give a hard-landing, so it'll need a careful "stable close to the ground floating", before doing so. Though, in an emergency, with little landing distance available, it's giving you the opportunity to avoid the "float forever" and get (IE force) the aircraft on the ground and be able to brake, etc. And, at the same time, reducing the undershoot risk, since you know, you have a trick available to force the aircraft on the ground, and can keep up the speed a little more.
