I've had 3 engine failures in an SEP, 1 in an Auster and 2 in a Prentice. The Prentice failures resulted from magneto failure while flying in cloud in Italy, and from an engine fire just after take-off in Baghdad. In both I was extremely lucky to get away with it, mainly because the training and culture at Sleap in the early '60s was superb. We practised forced landings, stopping the propeller, spot landings without engine, and similar, usually competitively to add interest.

The Auster incident is relevant to the Impossible Turn. The club had a rule that before a first solo, the CFI would take the student on a check flight, usually a couple of circuits. On my check ride, at about 300ft the engine stopped suddenly. As I pushed the nose down to land ahead among some trees there was a shout of "I have control" and Les executed a diving turn to port, levelled off and landed downwind on the grass. He was an ex-RAF fighter pilot, Spitfire and Hurricane, I believe. The chances of surviving the procedure in the book, ie landing in the trees, were about 50/50.

For years afterwards I campaigned to have the basic training requirement changed to including teaching and practice about calculating for every take-off, with all the variables of weight, wind, temperature etc,, the height from which the turn can be made safely by a pilot who has been taught the manoeuvre, A letter to Flight magazine headed "The Impossible Turn" saying this started a heated and often acrimonious correspondence, in the early '70s.

When the dogma came into being, nearly every airfield was surrounded by fields offering fairly safe landings. But from WWII onwards this changed so that by the '60s a "straight-ahead crash" would be on housing or otherwise built up areas. However, the reliability of modern engines has reduced the risk of a properly maintained and managed piston engine failing to almost zero, so this is probably an academic discussion.

Unless, of course, you still fly behind an old-fashioned engine like a Cirrus or Gipsy Queen. And if you do, you probably know how and when to make the Impossible Turn, should you need to.

This 100%.

I would also suggest to locate places to put it down in and around your home airfield, as statistically that has a higher rate of probability for location of engine failure.

To demonstrate this, a checkout with the CFI went as follows. Take off to the East, EFATO, leave to the North and go to the training area for PFL and general handling. All as expected, but.....

EFATO fine, climbing away. Through 500ft turning North. At around 900ft, CFI took control and closed the throttle. Engine Failure.

What? Really? Here? Yes really! Is this EFATO # 2 or PFL? Confused.com. Time is ticking and I'm not managing the situation. Response was it doesn't matter you are already low and going down, where are you going? Too far away from the field to return (airport size pattern).

It just so happened a very small field was off the starboard wingtip and that was the only option. And my position was right base for this short narrow field strip descending through 700ft. In their......you must be joking. No in their. And in we went and I would have got in. Years of experience has got me in their.

That was a huge learning and very real. EFATO followed by immediate PFL. Climbing away, through 1500ft, I joked that you're not going to quickly close the throttle again are you? Why not was the response.

Upto that point I hadn't considered engine failure in this area. We normally depart to the West where there is ample space to put it down.

All this bearing in mind that many many years ago, during PPL training we had a full on real engine fail at 600ft right above the M1 one sunny Sunday afternoon. We got it down, yet that experience still didn't stop the startle wtf effect of that checkride.

Continue to practice post PPL. Know your local area intimately. Don't make PFL drills easy for yourself. Learn slideslip and for me, don't practice rigidly to the scripted technique you were taught.

Another CFI with aerobatics showed me how to get it down very quickly if high going in using what I felt as abrupt aggressive slideslip compared to my technique. Fantastic skills and great learning.

Might it not be possible that the instructor allowed the student to fly the aircraft with her just keeping a watching brief? Making judgement without the pertinent detail I think is some what foolish.You're correct Bames. Also, a stopped propeller on a 172 is not going to affect the stall speed.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....69215ab7d6.png

Lets go a different direction with this, whoever posted the video stated “total engine failure”.
We don’t know that to be correct.
That could have been a partial engine failure with a non responsive engine.
Broken throttle cable, clogged injectors if this was a later model SP, many options.
It the prop was windmilling you’d expect a steeper glide.
It may not have necessarily been the instructor at the controls. If the field was easily made why not let the student gain the full experience and fly?
Why should this have been a spot landing on the opposite threshold?
How many hours did the instructor have on type, make or model?
Last but not least, you don’t get a year older on your birthday you get a day older.
The difference between being a student and an instructor is one flight with an examiner.
Lets not judge too harshly here as we don’t know the experience level.
All turned out well enough.
He who cast the first stone better be without sin.
Nobody bothered to give me a familiarization flight at my first CFI job so first flight, first student, I promptly got lost and spend the majority of the flight teaching basic maneuvers till I came across the airport again.

:rolleyes: pilotmike, I think it's you who's a bit confused, buddy. A stopped prop is almost as good as a feathered prop. A windmilling prop creates negative thrust (i.e. additional drag). No need to compensate for increased stall speed in a 172 with an engine out.

You folk do make me laugh! Talk about over analysis.
Ive had three engine failures in SEPs where I've landed on the runway - one downwind like in the video.
She was more than two miles out for goodness sake. She got back to the runway. She could see she could get it in. So she did.
Bloody well done.
Anything else you want to say about it is needless BS.

I think the error of the topic originator was to evaluate (i.e., “horrible”) an emergency, engine-out landing using routine-landing criteria. As to whether there are to be lessons learned? Of course there are. But don’t offer up the false choice of (1) brilliant, nothing to be learned, or (2) horrible, much to be learned. There’s a third choice: good enough but still plenty to be learned.

A very long time ago during a BFR in a 172, my CFI pulled the power, simulating the standard engine failure. Though within sight of an airport, our altitude was in that gray area where it appeared we were too high for a straight in and too low for a pattern to the opposite direction (crafty CFI, eh?). I chose the straight-in, dropping full flaps and aggressively (rudder at the stop) forward slipping, and the 172 proceeded to drop like a stone. The CFI allowed the simulated emergency to proceed all the way to landing and we touched down at proper landing speed half way down a 5000 ft runway. I thought we were going to overshoot but stuck to my plan given that (simulated) I had no other option.

I was fortunate to have a CFI during my primary flight training that insisted on forward slip proficiency from his students.

I'm sure the participants had plenty to learn. But not us with just what we see on the video (well she should have used the M word on every radio call, as someone else has said).

When this happens for real the thought process goes like this
Damn! How do we get down ok? (pause)Umm ok that's the plan then
(more pause) is this going to work? Yep, still looking ok. Right carry on then and don't mess it up
(Repeat this a few times) wow! We're down and we're alive

Note there is no thought given to whether there's a theoretically better thing to do once you've made your plan. All attention is on making a success of the one you've chosen.
And no worrying about what the video will look like or what those guys on the internet will say.

If this was a candidate on a PPL skill test I would award a pass because the pilot succesfully concluded the flight without damage or injury and achieved the aim which is to land safely after an engine malfunction. However in the debrief and with the candidates permission, I would have added. From a 2 mile final it would have been possible to consider, I emphasise consider, altering the glide path of the aircraft by
1. Slipping, Cessna warn of elevator oscillation above 20 degrees of flap
2. S turning
3. Diving the height off with flaps full just slower than the flap limiting speed.
Do not consider any of the above unless you have been taught the proper procedures

Its important to declare an emergency using the standard recognised international phraseology, EG Mayday or Pan Pan Pan. A fire truck can only attend the scene if the driver knows of the emergency and making the proper call leaves no doubt about your situation and the need for urgency. Fire is the major concern and being unable to vacate the aircraft without assistance. Seconds count if an aircraft goes on fire after impact

I got the impression that the pilot merely accepted the final glide path without trying to modify it, this is a common mistake. However we do not know the full circumstances and the ground track of the aircraft, my comments therefore are based on an element of supposition

On a FI AOC I would have expressed dissatisfaction that the instructor candidate didn’t employ any of the 3 above methods to bring the touchdown point closer to the landing runway threshold as being a flying instructor, not only should they be able to do this but teach it also. With a tailwind the initial aiming point and final touchdown point becomes more important.

The fact that the emergency wasn’t declared properly by a mayday or pan pan pan call is a very disappointing omission by a flight instructor.

Whether the propeller was windmilling or not is not relevant, the best glide speed gives adequate protection above the stall speed for a safe approach and landing, windmilling or static. Providing the engine hasn’t seized or is restricted the prop should windmill at Vmd anyway.

If there was a handling or speed problem with a seized propeller it would be mentioned in the C172 manual, it isn’t.

Heston, I think that many reading some of the comments on this thread will learn something, even if the points are not totally relevant to this incident. Let's consider this incident as a trigger for debate.

I have been a witness at an inquest after the front seat pilot died in an attempted forced landing following an engine failure; the instructor lived. There were some witnesses who said that the accident was caused by not formulating a single plan early and sticking to it rather than assessing the situation continuously and adjusting accordingly. I said that I felt strongly that a continuous re-appraisal was the best way to operate but that is a personal opinion, albeit one that has worked for me so far. .

Yes. Good points.
What I meant about the plan and sticking to it was that if it's clearly going to work and as you continue to fly it and appraise it it is still going to work, then you stick with it. What you don't do half way through is think. " I can see now that I should have done something else that might have been better, so I'll change my plan."
Sticking to your original plan even when you can see it's not going to work is not what I meant. You need to change plan. But now you've lost time and have fewer options...
KISS works

When I was training I had a rough running engine on departure from our local airport. Having around ten hours dual at that point I didn't really know enough to be very 'concerned'.
The instructor took over for a minute or two, checking things over, then handed back control to me. We flew a wide circuit (the pattern being over a largish city), with enough height to
be able to land clear. On final we were 500 feet above circuit height: the advice being that we would have enough height to glide in if the engine gave up.

As we rolled out on final we were surprised to see how many fire trucks and ambulances were waiting for us. Apparently the local plan didn't consider the size of the aircraft in trouble,
and just scrambled the lot. A normal landing ensued with no major problems.

What impressed me then, and still does now, is how my instructor assessed the situation and then let me get on with it. I've no doubt that if I'd started to panic he'd have taken over.
Instead it ended up as a huge confidence booster to a newish student. So, if you're reading this Geoff, thanks mate!

For me, having read all your comments above, I think that unless you've been there and done it just congratulate the pilot for what they did. There but for fortune etc.

Damn right, and I'd just add try not to school everyone else unless you know what you're talking about! It's embarrassing 🤕

Like others, I think this was a real emergency, handled without damage to aircraft or occupants. Was it perfect? I don’t know but that’s not the point - the outcome was way over on the side of satisfactory.

It looks like a quite heavily forested area, and if I was doing a glide approach for real I would be aiming well into the field, as going off the runway at low speed is a much better outcome than hitting whatever is in the undershoot at flying speed. Yes, there are ways to adjust your glide path one you are *sure* you’re going to make it but given the stress of the situation and the result it’s icing on the cake, really. For those saying they looked a bit fast (groundspeed), they were landing downwind as it seems it was the only option, so they would, wouldn’t they?

Job well done IMHO.

Let’s not forget one important ingredient: Human Factors.
Doesn’t matter how well you do in training the first time somebody shoots at you in anger changes your perspectives.
Same with the first time your only engine sounds like it’s hacking up a lung.
People deal in different ways when their life is literally dependent on what they do for the next couple minutes.
Some freeze, some stay cool till they get home then fall apart and some just try and stumble their way through it the best they can.
Training is always different from that very first time dealing with the real thing.
Lets face it, most GA proficiency checks are done cookie cutter style, designated practice areas and they do their best to distract you from seeing that really big field under the right wing when they pull the power.
Go around at 500’ because of low flying restrictions and noise and off to the clubhouse they go.
So it’s fairly arrogant to state how good you are in a training environment if you don’t know how difficult the real thing is.
Its like being a black belt in no contact Karate.

How much runway was left when the aircraft stopped? She might be regularly landing far up the runway. I do so, if told to vacate at the end. If you can land on a 400m runway you can land 400m from the end, using runway markings for your threshold.
Unlike a Pa28 or 38, she could not be sure of flaps after an engine failure as vibration at failure might affect battery connections.
From her voice, there was no hassle. Very impressed.

I'm lucky enough to have benefited from the David Coulson GFT party trick. it's true, once the prop stops, (and he threw the key in the back!) it really wasn't a great deal like a PFL! I did manage to park it by the clubhouse though as instructed. They don't make them like him any more.

Ain't that the truth?

The actual accident record for forced landings in trees is almost 100 % survivability if the airplane was under control. The fatal accidents where the airplane hit trees are when the aircraft was not in controlled flight. The low altitude turnback is almost binary. You either make it or you lose control in the turn and the resultant stall spin is almost always fatal. Transport Canada did a study on this issue. They determine that a turn back is 8 times more likely to result in a fatal accident over a glide straight ahead. The key to surviving a light airplane crash is aircraft control. If you hit at gliding speed with the wings level and in a level or slightly nose up attitude you will survive pretty much regardless of what you hit.

I would suggest that this was a well flown emergency and the disparaging comments in some of the posts are out of line. I have 2 comments

1) This is a good example of the value of prefacing all emergency radio calls with Mayday. If she had she would probably not have to have a distracting call to the other airplane

2) I would be vey interested in finding out why the engine failed. Since between 2/3 and 3/4 of all engine failures are directly caused by the actions or in inactions of the pilot, I predict that this was in fact the case in this incident.

Of course it’s easy to say that this was ‘well done’ as everyone seems to agree but surely the most important thing to consider after every flight is, “what mistakes did I make and how can avoid them next time”. Or, “is there anything I could have done better”? Backslapping is positive and of course more sociably acceptable but it’s not the best way of improving performance, that’s of course if you want to improve your performance!

And this is why many here -after acknowledging the good judgement- suggested that a carefully executed sideslip, after having made sure that sufficient energy is available to reach the runway even if the engine completely quits, would have been the icing on the cake.

But at least there was cake...

Absolutely. And a good one.

Well. Thanks all. You may be surprised to hear that I don't regret starting this thread, even if it made me look like a prat.

Next time, I would be less willing to criticize, even though criticism does not imply that I think I could have done better. In fact, as soon as I saw the video, I had a nightmare vision of me frozen at the controls, having come in high, seeing the runway rapidly disappearing and not having the brain bandwidth to do anything about it. Discussions like this might help me to visualize sideslipping to save the day. I have used sideslipping, without flaps and early in the approach in practice engine fails, but I don't trust that I would have had the mental ability to pull that trick out of the box with flaps down and 50 feet above the runway.

Thanks!

Yeah you would do it, trust me. As long as the concept of sideslipping on approach is familiar to you you'd do it. Maybe not with finesse, but you don't need finesse, you need to be safe.

How about this one - slow below best glide speed to steepen the approach angle!?

Never taught it to my students. But tried it a few times on my own and worked like magic.
Discuss.

As you found out, it works but there are a couple of traps to be wary of. First, your margin from the stall is reduced so if you flare from this speed you may stall. Associated with that, when you flare your speed will reduce and as you are below min drag speed your rate of descent will increase and you can get a heavy landing. However, if at a suitable height you dive to regain the best glide speed before you flare then it can work well, and I suspect that this is what you did? But it can go wrong and result in a heavy landing or stall.

No.

My "no" is supported by the fact that this is not an approved training nor operational procedure anywhere. And, as correctly mentioned, it puts the plane is a regime of flight where it will be necessary to accelerate it before it can be safely flared for a landing. Doing this would be similarly unsafe as a prolonged climb at Vx, where there is no obstacle to clear. If the engine stops, you have to just up precious altitude gliding to accelerate to best glide speed (or probably a little faster) so you can successfully flare to arrest your rate of descent. Speed is safety!

A review of the concept of a "height/velocity" or "Avoid" curve for a helicopter, and how that actually applies to an airplane as well will support this understanding.

Thanks B2N2! The above would be a good wall poster in so many places.

One thing you ain't db is a prat, raising the subject is a learning exercise in that it generates discussion, it's a bit like the quote "there is no such thing as a stupid question". Although I had military training on the T-34 and T-28 side slipping was not part of repertoire the taught, though it was in my previous civil life. Overshooting badly on a simulated engine failure into a thinly treed paddock one day in the T-28 it didn't even enter my mind to try side slipping, may have got a wrap across the knuckles from the instructor and a lecture on spinning or snap rolls.

This is something that I demonstrate in my current steed of choice (1938 Tiger Moth). It is possible to sit high on base leg at 40kts until the picture/height looks right, then make a dirty dive to Vmd and turn finals. It does require practice and judgement and I prefer to use S turns and aggressive side slip. The only advantage is that it is a less dynamic environment and the touchdown zone can easily be kept in constant view throughout.

Ex-helicopter pilots seem to like it!

Mog

PS Stall is c35kts!

Once the aircraft has let you down - in this case with engine failure - the sole aim thereafter is to preserve life.
The aeroplane surviving intact is a welcome bonus.
It is good to analyse these things - learning takes place.

lsh

At say 50 kts and full flaps in a C172, you sit comfortably well above a known stall speed. On the other hand in a full fwd slip with full flaps I am not really sure as to where I've got my airflow limits.
As for the flare, a slow transition back to normal flare speed. Or a seat of the pants flare from a lower speed. Either works if you're one with your airplane. A bad idea probably for a new inexperienced student.

You're right that I have never worked (or been taught) at any training facility which trains that concept, or even discuss it. Is there such a thing though as "approved training method" or is it just a 'norm' ? Where I am from training facilities are not as tighly regulated as airlines, no school I've been to (US and European) has an authority approved FCOM or SOP. Hence I am wondering if you could call it "approved". If so, by whom?

That's what I quite liked about it, you could just sit there in peace waiting for the "right view". Instead of messing about with a slip, which is dynamic and more demanding. An S-turn similairly, more things to process in your mind at the same time.
Been many years no since I even touched an SEP, so I might not be the best to comment. However, proper energy management is a very rewarding thing in airliner. Maybe the reason why I take good interest in this thread.

A lot of talk about slipping.
I’m thinking a forward slip is what’s used to lose energy if high and fast. Is something different taught in the UK or wherever?

Well, you sit ten knots faster than the POH (172S) speed, so well above...? Above, okay.

Firstly, the POH (Flight Manual) is FAA approved, and describes the techniques and speeds for flying the airplane. If something you're doing in the plane is different than what the POH says, it's not approved.

I'm less expert at who approves training curriculums, but I'm certain that the national authority does - they won't issue a license to a candidate who has not been recommended against the training standards. Instructors must train students to the curriculum, and not in contravention of the airplane POH. But that's the legality, it's the physics of power idle/off flight in power planes which is more important:

Again, referencing the 172S, yes, you can sit high on the approach, full flaps, descending under control at 50 KIAS, with power idle (or a failed engine) so power is not being considered any more. Cessna tells you that for that phase of flight, you should be flying at 65 KIAS (incidentally, Cessna also tells us that "maximum glide" will be achieved at 68 KIAS - flaps up, I'm sure). I don't have information for full flaps glide, but I'm sure we'll all agree that it's much less distance per altitude than flaps up. So you're going down more steeply, and at a slower airspeed than the POH values. That's okay, as long as you can recover it to a zero rate of descent when you need to. It is a pilot's ultimate goal to arrive back to earth at a zero rate of descent! As you are descending (at a steady rate, we'll presume), you are going to have to accelerate upward from that descent path to momentarily arrest your rate of descent to zero (to prevent impact). Accelerating takes energy, and all the energy you have to work with is airspeed only, as the engine is not available to you for power. So Cessna tells you you should be at 65 KIAS, but you've chosen to fly at 50 KIAS, and stall is at 40 KIAS. When you see the ground getting really close, you're going to pull, to achieve that zero rate of descent which will allow the plane to be reused. Cessna has demonstrated that from 65 KIAS, a pilot of average skill can exchange that 25 knot excess airpseed into a zero RoD before the stall. Oh, by the way, from that steeper descent angle, it will require a greater acceleration upward (G) than normal to flare. Slightly greater G requirement means that stall speed goes up when you pull. Cessna test pilots have learned the same lesson I've learned during flight testing, that the ten knot excess speed above stall on approach is just not enough.

Or... you glide the proper speed as per the POH. If you're too high/fast, slip. You can slip at any speed, modulate it from a little slip to more, and recover in a second, with no change in speed. And, if you're wanting to add drag to get down faster, fly a higher airspeed, drag increases as a square of the speed. And, sideslips are approved in the flight manual, and the training material.

Flying slow approaches, or simply flying slowly at low altitude should make your Spidey senses tingle. Some of the scariest flight testing I have done has been demonstrating a landing from a sudden power loss at 50 feet (a design requirement) from speeds slower than "normal" for the plane (Vy). If you want to safely prove this to yourself, do the following: Climb up into your practice area, at least as high as you'd practice stalls from. Choose a "hard deck" altitude several thousand feet up - a round number altitude will make it easier. Stabilize a slow cruise flight 150 feet higher than that hard deck altitude, at the glide speed and flap setting you'd like to evaluate. Close the throttle rapidly, and enter a glide at your proposed speed. As you approach the hard deck as indicated on your altimeter, pull to arrest your descent momentarily at that altitude, prepared to recover a gentle stall there if it does. Were you able to pause the altimeter pointer at that altitude? If so, it's probably a good speed. If you pulled and stalled, dropping through that altitude, it was too slow, you did not retain enough reserve energy in the plane, to spend arresting the descent before you hit.

From observations I have made during testing, I believe that Cessna's lawyers had a role in choosing the climb and glide speeds for their airplanes - probably Cessna's lawyers have learned the hard way!

Pilot DAR,

As you mentioned it, I had to check Vso for the Cessna I had in mind - 172R. Vso is 33 kts. Then I checked the 172S. Vso is 40 kts. I thought it was the same airframe with a slightly higher power engine and climb optimised propeller?

As for the rest I am humble to your experience in flight testing. My suggestion of slowing below best glide to steepen the approach angle was not to maintain it until flare. Rather to realise that energy management by speed is another tool in the toolbox. Use it until back on profile, until you've got the right picture back. I have seen some pretty scary forward slips as the pilot doesn't lower the nose to match the increased drag. That manoeuvre in itself introduces some risks.

The most important thing DB is what have you learned from the above posts and what would YOU do now you have had the wisdom from others. You may have heard that old saying, There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots. Ask yourself from the advice you have received who do you categorise as potentially the old and the bold. Most of my bold friends, whose attitude I can detect in some of the posts above, never made it to be being old pilots. It’s great to be a hero and and an ace but the safest pilots usually get to come home every night.

Yes, I agree with you! The POH charts tell us that the 172S is 100 pounds heavier than the 172R. Aside from the weight change, I doubt that the engine and prop affect the stall speed. Interesting though, as stall speeds are accurate in CAS rather than IAS, note that there only 1 knot difference in KCAS stall speeds in that configuration between the two 172's!

I've done lots of stall testing in many models of Cessnas, including lots of mods like STOL kits, floats and external loads, and some AoA system set ups. CAS becomes a pretty important factor, when you're really getting down to the precision of the stall speed. That's why the POH says that KIAS values are approximate.

Yes, it is. I don't deny that what you suggest works. But, I opine that it's a tool which the approving authorities have decided has a risk to benefit ratio which is not worth it. There things I have found airplanes will do, but probably shouldn't. I have written a number of flight manual supplements for modified planes in which I have restricted or prohibited certain things, because they lacked a suitable margin of safety, and just were not necessary. Often, this was based upon my having done it. An example of this, was that during my flight testing of a C 182Q, which was now equipped with a STOL kit, wing extensions, amphibious floats, and a gross weight increase, among a number of other mods. During testing, I let it get too slow on final approach (like 65 KIAS) power off. I got that really unsettling feeling, added power and sped it up. I then flew a number of intentional power off approaches to establish a suitable glide speed, and settled on 80 KIAS. This is an increase from the 70 KIAS for the original configuration. That speed left a margin for error and average pilot skill. I had to train the new owner in it, and with that glide speed, training went fine.

For myself, I find that if there is to be a judgement error during a forced landing, I'd rather see it to be fast/high than slow/low. As the original video shows us, you're better to go off the end at low speed, than crash short (and maybe out of control) at flight speed. My third forced landing (an EFATO) had me a little fast and high - surprise factor, delayed proper action. I came to a stop in the adjoining field about ten feet from the far end fence with full flaps, nose up elevator and brakes applied. No damage, not my proudest airmanship, but better than tangled in the trees at the approach end - and, should it have not worked out, I could state to the insurance company that I had done exactly what the POH and my training had said to do.

Just a quick note re side slipping Cessna's with full flap.
Had an instructor demonstrate a fairly vigorous side slip in a 150. This was over 35 years ago and was to show me how to 'fix up' a stuffed practice forced landing into some paddock.
Lost control at around 200ft, flick rolled and ended up near enough inverted.
After he recovered and during the awkward flight of shame back home I asked what happened...
'No idea' was the reply....
Later on figured out he stalled the fin. It was nasty.

.

:hmm: rolled near inverted at 200 feet in a 150?