PFLs - good and bad practice

[Genghis the Engineer]

Whilst "safety piloting" a fellow syndicate member this morning, we decided to spend some time flying PFLs - since I'm a great fan of regular practice and he admitted to being badly out of currency. This concentrated the mind for a while and it would be fair to say that we were both glad that the engine hadn't actually stopped on one or two of them, but we got to the point of both being quite happy about the best way to fly it in that particular aeroplane, and went home for tea and medals.

But, this concentrated the mind somewhat. I am personally quite happy about my approach to PFLs, which in simplistic terms is:-

(1) Establish best glide-angle speed and pick a field that I can reach, if the wind is strong, ideally into wind, if it isn't (or not clear) ideally up a gentle slope.

(2) Pick an aiming point that gives me enough landing distance before I run out of field, and preferably well into the field (the old 1/3 rule works quite well).

(3) Imagine a runway starting at that aiming point, set myself up as efficiently as possible (a) ideally downwind, (b) if absolutely necessary on base, or (c) if I was very low, in which case I was flying field to field anyway, on finals.

(4) Fly a constant aspect approach - that is with a continuous slope angle to my aiming point as I turn reasonably gently, tightening or slackening the turn for drift and misjudgement.

(5) At 100-200ft ( a bit higher if a really big field), roll wings level, establish approach speed, and set up to land. If too high, sideslip, dive or S-turn the excess off, depending upon preference and type - but always aim to err on being slightly too high.


(Then, of-course, going around only once I'm absolutely certain I'll make it, which personally I take at around 50ft.)



But my approach is not the only approach I've ever seen. For example, one very experienced FI I flew with once insisted upon rectangular circuits, as I'd fly at a civil airfield - which to me is totally wrong since once established on base the ability to correct misjudgement is very poor. Another approach I've seen is to set up close to finals then lose a lot of height with continuous S-turns, not something I'm at-all fond of, since it's very hard in most aeroplanes to accurately monitor height and position relative to the aiming point that way.

So, am I right or wrong in my prejudices here? Does anybody agree or disagree with me? Is there another way I've not mentioned? Instructors - how do you teach PFLs, and how low do you take them?

G

[Fly Stimulator]

Genghis,

Then, of-course, going around only once I'm absolutely certain I'll make it, which personally I take at around 50ft.)
This is an area where I found big differences between microlight and light aircraft training, as I assume you probably did as well.

In microlights it is usual to get very close to the ground before going around from a PFL, both during training and in the GFT. 50 feet or less seems quite usual.

On the other hand, when I subsequently did my JAR SEP training I was surprised to be told to go around at 500 feet, which is before it starts to get really interesting.

The roots of this cultural difference are obvious enough, since light aircraft engines have been generally reliable for several decades whereas microlight engines have only become so in relatively recent years.

I tend to agree with you that trying to preserve the pleasing aesthetics of a nice square circuit should not be top priority during a forced landing. Some of the techniques illustrated in the textbooks do tend to assume that you have all the time in the world to sort things out. If however you have been flying quite low (<2,500 under the London TMA example) in something with a high wing loading and a poor glide ratio then you're doing well if you can find a field and position for it at all, let alone fly a neat circuit around it.

[StrateandLevel]

Good thinking Genghis, let me add my pennyworth:

(1) Establish best glide-angle speed and pick a field that I can reach, if the wind is strong, ideally into wind, if it isn't (or not clear) ideally up a gentle slope.

Why not pick an area of fields so that you can refine your choice as you get closer? Ideal fields are often surrounded by similar fields! If you can see a gentle slope from the air, it will be a marked slope on the ground! If you land uphill you invariably land in the undershoot.

(3) Imagine a runway starting at that aiming point, set myself up as efficiently as possible (a) ideally downwind, (b) if absolutely necessary on base, or (c) if I was very low, in which case I was flying field to field anyway, on finals.

Why restrict yourself to an imaginary runway, a large grass area is better as you can come at it from any direction thereby regulating the track distance.
If you fly constant aspect, you need to establish the ideal low key height for the aircraft type; that should place you downwind with the aiming point just aft of the wing tip.

(5) At 100-200ft ( a bit higher if a really big field), roll wings level, establish approach speed, and set up to land. If too high, sideslip, dive or S-turn the excess off, depending upon preference and type - but always aim to err on being slightly too high.

Try to roll out wings level on final by 400 feet, with no flap. Then take flap in stages lowering the nose to retain the glide speed whilst bring the aiming point towards you. Retain the glide speed untill you flare, initially to a normal approach attitude (that washes off the extra speed) then to a normal flare for landing.

If you fly a machine with retractable gear and a VP prop you need to establish the basic parameters before it happens for real, some need a lot of height at "low key".

Remember don't let the other pilot get you into a position where you can't get it into a field!

[bar shaker]

Genghis

I practise regularly and think your procedure is pretty similar to mine. My only difference is that my machine rapidly runs out of energy so I don't fly a constant approach. I leave a bit of height in reserve just in case the wind gradient is less than expected.

Field size, surface and shape is also more important to me than being perfectly into wind.

I also go down very low as I think the last bit is the most important bit. I have thought I was in nicely at 400ft only to be short in a wind that was strong down to the deck.

I had major carb ice on take off, a few weeks ago. My only option, from 150ft was a field at 90deg to my path. The engine didn't actually stop but for some time sounded like it was just about to. Either that, or the fierce vibration and spluttering meant it would fall off. I was glad for regular practise and even though the engine ate the ice and recovered, the whole thing wasn't really a worry.

PFLs, down to the deck, are something we should all do regularly. Interestingly the latest height minima regs are designed to allow this.

[G-Foxtrot Oscar 69]

Well worth the practice. I guess we all get too complainant.

A few years back I was talking to an ex-RAF instructor who told a great story about 2 engine problems within a week.

The first happened to a student who had recently completed his 50 hour Ab initio and the second to an experienced RAF pilot. Can't remember type.

The 50 hour guy landed in a field no probs as he was well versed in PFL's and was on form. The experienced guy got his wings and rings from St Pete at the pearly gates.

I'm flying this week and will put some practice in.

Big thanks for the reminder.

Sorry to divert off track there!

[IO540]

My view is that statistically one is just as likely to have a suitable field(s) nearby, as far away.

So there isn't much point in aiming to glide absolutely as far as possible. Obviously one wants to maximise time in the air to check obvious things (fuel tank change, carb heat perhaps) but I bet most real engine en-route failures cannot be restarted, and to make a mayday call and set 7700.

As it is a lot easier to control the glide in azimuth (left to right) than it is to guess where one will end up in terms of gliding range (especially given wind shear) I would pick a direction, into wind if possible, where there is a number of fields lined-up on one's track. Then if you miss one field, you can go into the one behind it.

Anybody should be able to do this, even without practice. Doing an accurate forced landing into a specific field requires a lot of practice, and if it is for real, one will be doing this stuff under a LOT of pressure. Just think how some ATCO with a personality problem, or a passenger being sick, or kids fighting in the back, can spook you into making mistakes, and multiply that 10 times for a real forced landing.

[Obs cop]

Genghis,

Just my little piece, (oh err)

Anyways, the gliding fraternity avoid standard square circuits like the plague because the last thing you want is to fly a downwind, away from your landing area only to turn base and find you are no longer in gliding distance of your field. They have adapted the circuit to include a 45 degree leg between the latter stages of downwind and base. The result is that they are always within gliding distance of their target field.

I have taken this over to my powered flying, I just wish I had variable airbrakes.;)

Any instructor who forces students to fly a standard circuit pattern is setting them up for trouble IMHO.

The other technique I am practicing at the moment is as you describe with a constant sight picture and varying the turn on a long curved approach from downwind onto final.

As my instructor said time and again, keep sight of your field and never turn your back on it.

Obs cop

[Fuji Abound]

I am going to be controversial.

In my opinion the very best way to practice PFls is to take the unsuspecting group member to an airfield to practice touch and gos. Let them set up down wind or where ever and cut the power. That is how it happens when you least expect it and a successful landing demonstrates just how well or badly the PFL went. Having got one out the way go back and practice technique – and thereby comes the earlier contributions on best methods.

[ACW 335]

My rule when i fly is...if my engine stops now where can i go?
I do this every now and again (especially if doing aeros) then if it does stop there's no mad panic trying to find a suitable field!

[englishal]

I tend to agree with IO540, in that suitable fields are probably very close. This stems from my old habit of looking for a field in the distance, aiming for it, then choosing another, going for that, then deciding the original was the best, by which time I am out of height.

I was subsequently taught by an instructor on a syndicate check out to pick a close field, preferably a little ahead and to the left (and stick to it), head towards it choosing an aiming point 1/3 the way in, and fly an oval pattern about this field, adjusting as nescessary (from the aspect.....picking a point on the left window). When "downwind" select the start of the field as the aiming point and fly a relatively normal pattern, adjusting as nescessary, bearing in mind that final should be into wind (hence steeper glide path) and leaving flaps until late, if at all....If I am too high, I can widen the circuit, and if too low, tighten it in.

EA

[Miserlou]

Obs cop,
Just to clear a matter, pedantic I'm sure, but it is relevant. As a glider pilot I learned always to make the circuit on the downwind side (how rare is a wind straight down the strip?) The point being, and this is the whole point of the constant aspect approach, you can at any time during the circuit, turn in and land with minimal manouvering as close to into wind as the conditions permit.

I had an instructor try to teach me these square thingies; he couldn't do it as well as I could do a constant aspect PFL.

He also reckoned that one should fly a straight line from the high-key to the low key positions (and then a straight base and final).

I have heard only one argument for square circuit PFL's that holds any water. It is so that an engine failure is handled like a normal landing.

I believe if you take a look at the accident statistics you will see that the number of stall/spin/loss of control/poorly judged accidents after such a simple event as an engine failure show this argument to be seriously flawed.

[Obs cop]

Miserlou,

I agree with all that you added to my original post.;)

Mind you I have far more time on powered than on gliders but they must be doing something right cos they get virtually all landings out away from the home strip right.

My feelings are that the gliding fraternity are far more concious of safety than most powered pilots and more importantly, practice constantly.

I think the idea of doing square circuits to make engine failures more akin to a regular landing is also asking for trouble, because it quite clearly won't be a regular landing. Surely by frequent practice of a specific PFL routine,you could rely more solidly on that. By trying to do something akin to a regular circuit, then in a stressful situation you may use the incorrect visual and height cues leaving yourself too far from the relative safety of the field.

I believe in KISS. Practice a simple and straightforward routine for PFL's and you have something straight forward and simple to revert to in times of pressure. I tend to practice PFL's about once every 3 to 5 hours. I find the easiest way is to throw in your practice engine failure in on return from a nav route on the final leg to my home airfield. Firstly it doesn't cause too many problems time wise and is a nice way to get down ready for joining the circuit.

Obs cop

[Capt. Manuvar]

In PPL training we are taught to fly at a particular best glide speed, but in the :mad: ATPL notes i'm reading, in order to get the best gliding range you have to add the headwind factor or subtract the tailwind factor to best glide speed. I know it adds to the complexity of the situation but is worth keeping at the back of one's mind when range becomes an issue.
Capt. M

[LowNSlow]

Capt M for an aircraft gliding at 200+ knts from 30,000+' the gliding range may be significantly altered by the prevailing windspeed at the different levels. For yer average Cessna / Piper / Robin etc at best glidespeed of 65-ish knts and 1,500-2,500' height, the best range is academic. In the latter circumstances it's best to pick a field that you can reach even if the windspeed at low level is 30knts against you. If you end up too high then you have the option of picking another field or adjusting your height to suit your first choice. Best range would only really be applicable in an SEP (or light twin) if you are within a reasonable distance of an airfield and you need to know if you have the height to make it.

[DFC]

Depending on the situation, the best options in an engine failure are;

1. Land ahead - (EFATO, low level, flying into wind)
2. Establish on final as high as possible and complete figure of 8 holding pattern (turning towards the field) until a straight in landing is available
3. If too low for 2, complete a constant aspect turning approach into the field.

During the lesson I demonstrate the two things one should not sensibly try - turn back in EFATO (or engine failure after PFL) and the square circuit.

Quite true to say that there usually a field close at hand. I impress that having suffered an engine failure, it is far better to land well in a small field and hit the far hedge at 10Kt than not make it into the big field while hitting the near hedge at 65Kt.

Agree that taking the approach as low as possible makes it more realistic however, aside from rule 5, when doing such a low go-arround one must have made allowance for a) the engine not responding or b) the engine failing for real during the climb away at low level.

Regards,

DFC

[Flyin'Dutch']

Not enough people practice PFLs often enough.

Not enough PPLs practice glide approached often enough.

If people would fly more appropriate circuits all the time (which I know at some places is not possible due to local noise abatement procedures) they would be a lot better at gauging aircraft performance and approach angles from different locations in the circuit.

I would be hesitant to advocate a completely different circuit for (P)FLs if people are used to flying rectangular once for normal circuits. Modify what you are used to rather than try to do a constant aspect approach, cause they require training and regular practice too.

If you look at accidents for FLs and outlandings for gliding it transpires that people come to grief for 2 reasons.

1. They go too slow near the ground and stall/spin

2. They go too fast and go through the hedge at the far end.

3. They change their field of choice in the latter stages.

The advantage of practising FLs is not just that you get better skilled at flying the aeroplane in a different configuration but also that the mindset changes from 'it won't happen' to 'it is happening and I am going to deal with it'

This is probably one of the reasons why off field landings in gliders are less likely to be a serious event than in an aeroplane. Everyone involved in XC gliding sets off knowing that an off field landing is on the cards.

Interestingly there is some evidence that people who fly gliders with a retrieve engine in their glider do not do so well as their engineless counterparts when the thing refuses to work. Again I think suggesting that mindset is an important factor.

I have said on here before that I think that by 500ft you should know whether you are in the 'slot' after that there is nor the time nor the room to make any meaningful changes.

If you are not sure whether you can judge whether you have it right by then you need to do more glide approaches at your homefield.

FD

[Genghis the Engineer]

DFC - Could you explain what you mean by a figure of 8 holding pattern - that's a new one to me. And don't you teach field-to-field low level, including climbing out from a PFL, that's certainly how I was taught and have flown ever since. I'm also fascinated that you teach a straight in out of preference - is that your normal circuit join with students as well, and do you S-turn or sideslip off extra height?

FD - I disagree that you meaningfully know whether, in most smaller aeroplanes, you are going to make a PFL by 500ft or not, unless you have a HUGE field in front of you - and you do have room for corrections, small heading changes to avoid a ditch, sidelipping to lose some extra height are both quite normal. Also you need to get used to the view as you roundout into a field with no runway edges and often a slope - you won't get that at your home field. I know that it feels much more comfortable to go-around from 500ft, but I really don't think it's a truly meaningful exercise.

G

[Flyin'Dutch']

G,

Not surprisingly I don't agree with your view on this one.

If you only spot the ditch below 500ft you have obviously got to work on your field selection. Unless you are very proficient in sideslipping, starting one at 500ft is going to be a recipy for disaster.

If you want to practice landing without the visual clues of a RWY you can go to some grass strips/airfields.

The notion that one can only do a meaningful PFL if you continue into the flare is not only incorrect but also does not encourage a lot of people to do them as they are worried about breaching rule 5 or being alleged of it.

I put it to you that if a pilot can consistently pull off a good landing on the spot from a glide approach and they are able to set themselves up consistently from a random 'pull the power PFL' to 500ft that they are likely able to pull off a decent FL.

FD

[pulse1]

It is many years since I have done any gliding and, in my day, there were two distinct factions who spent many bar hours arguing about the correct way to carry out the approach to land.

One side supported the square circuit, carrying out S turns at the end of the downwind leg if necessary.

The other argued for S turns on base leg as DFC appears to be advocating.

As an ATC gliding instructor I was, and still am as far as PFL's are concerned, very much in the first camp for the following reason:

180 degree turns are not the best manoeuvres, especially under near panic conditions, for controlling speed, position and rate of descent , making it easy to misjudge the approach into the field. . It would not surprise me if most of the spins off final approach aren't due to having to turn too late and too low. However, if you have completely misjudged and are far too high, then this one way to recover

Before the 1000' point on downwind, level with the touch down point, it is easier to assess the conditions and then adjust final turn. As FD says, by 500' you should really be "in the slot".

In my last biennual flight with an instructor I spent almost the whole flight carrying out PFL's from a range of heights. For one we deliberately started the final turn much too high and resorted to S turns. Yes it worked but I would much rather make those sort of adjustments above 1000' where it's safer.

[slim_slag]

Well, FD, I think you are correct in identifying 'mindset' as something you can positively affect when practicing forced landings. Statement of the bleeding obvious time - the thing that kills you is hitting the ground, and I'd guess that means it helps to be in the right frame of mind when you are close to the ground, i.e in those final 50ft. If you've never been down there how do you know how you will react? Most people have only ever landed on tarmac and even a nicely mown field will cause people to panic if they have never seen one close up. Take them down and show them it's not a death trap, and if they are down there for real one day they will be able to concentrate on a proper final approach and flare.

I never really appreciated this until I started doing engine out practice in a tail-dragger. In a nosewheel spam-can I'd always have this dread in the back of my mind that I'd get the nosewheel caught and flip over. Going down to 20ft in a tail-dragger and actually setting up for the landing made me realise that even a really nasty field was totally survivable. So I'm now believing that if the engine did fail I'd not be worrying myself into a fatal mistake in those final 50ft. I would not have known this if I'd never gone below 500ft.

Another reason to fly a tail-dragger, not that you need many, but they are designed to hate tarmac so you will surely do better in an off field landing flying one.

[dublinpilot]

One problem with not going below 500ft, is that you don't get to see the effect on your height of slowing from best glide speed to landing speed. It can save a lot of height, and wind up leaving you too high, unless it's a huge field.

Admitedly FD is right in saying that if you practice glide approaches at the airfield, you will get used to this, however many busy fields don't like people doing glide approaches in their busy circuit.

People seem to be favouring the constant approach method here. I was thought the square circuits method, and never shown a constant aspect approach. Would someone mind explaining exactly what a constant aspect approach is? I have a rough idea, but aren't too sure what exactly it is!

Thanks
dp

[Snigs]

Surely this is all about doing what you’re used to. If you generally do a constant aspect approach to land when the engine is working then do one when the engine stops. Seeing as I fly out of an airfield where the standard circuit is a rectangular circuit, I fly (and teach) a base leg and final approach into a field. The point being is that I know what it should look like because I’ve done that type of approach many times before.

IMHO an engine failure should be treated as follows:

1) Immediately select carb heat (if appropriate)
2) Establish best glide speed
3) Make a plan, i.e. select field taking into account size, shape, slope, surface, wind direction undershoot and overshoot, inhabitation etc, and then select a 1000 foot point (a point where you should be at 1000 ft on a base leg into the field)
4) Do the WHY checks. Fuel on (change tanks if appropriate), (carb heat check on), fuel pump on, mags on both, mixture rich, exercise throttle, try starter.
5) If the engine doesn’t start, call Mayday.
6) Fly to the 1000 ft point (doesn’t matter how, as long as you get there)
7) Now comes the judgement. Aim to land half way down the field, too high, fly through the extended centreline, too low, cut the corner. Use flaps as necessary to move the aiming point back towards the field boundary.
8) Perform the shutdown checks, remembering that if the flaps are electric then don’t switch the master off until sure that no more flap extension is required.
9) Brief yourself (and pax) to tighten straps, brace etc. Unlatch door/hatch
10) Use short field landing technique, a higher than normal vertical speed on landing will help remove the kinetic energy. Keep weight off nose for as long as possible.
11) Evacuate as quickly as possible, taking the first aid kit and fire extinguisher with you.
12) Telephone police and/or ATC with the news.

As I value my licence, I tend to perform a GA just above 500’agl, however by then I know whether we’d have made it or not.

I’m not saying everyone should do it like this, it’s horses for courses. As long as your technique gets you down alive, then it’s been successful.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Slim,

I never said never!

There is a difference between being shown what it all looks like when you go down below 500ft and what you do for recurrent training.

For a ME rating you do an engine shutdown and restart. When you are au fait with that you continue the rest of the training by flying with zero thrust after identifying and securing the 'dead' engine.

In a similar vein I think you can meaningfully train FLs between the altitude you have your simulated engine failure and 500ft.

If you do PFLs as often as I think is necessary to be proficient you will know whether you are in the groove by 500ft.

Not sure why you think flying a taildragger will make you better at doing a FL. See what you say about grass fields and people's lack of acquaintance with them. We had a thread not so long ago making that very obvious.

FD

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think FD we are destined to disagree - I believe that perspective, rotor, judgement of position and flare point, all require practice, which is best done under 100ft and certainly under 500ft. However, presumably neither of us have ever damaged an aircraft after an engine failure (courtesy of my strange hobby of test flying homebuilts I'm up to 6 - although admittedly five were restarted in the air) - so we must be doing something right.


Anyhow, Dublinpilot asked about a constant aspect approach. This is best demonstrated in the air, or at-least with diagrams. However I'll give it a go.

Identify your "runway" and aiming point - the latter is generally around 1/3 into the runway. Flying at whatever speed works (approach speed if onto an airfield or your field is close in, best glide initially if not). Obviously the aiming point needs to be reachable, but heading is optional, except in the circuit, when you want to start at the end of downwind.

Now adjust power to descend (or in a PFL, or glide approach, close the throttle) keep turning towards that point - keeping it's slant angle constant below the horizontal. Keep turning - adjusting the bank angle to keep that angle (aspect) constant. You should be aiming to roll out at a couple of hundred feet, on the runway heading. Now re-adjust to approach speed, and you should touch down near the start of your "runway" a little before your original aiming point.

If anybody can point to a website with pictures, it would probably help everybody - it's not a subject that lends itself to words only.

G

N.B. Snigs
As I value my licence, I tend to perform a GA just above 500’agl It's MSD, not AGL in this country.

[Snigs]

Genghis, yes I know :) , but you never know where the NIMBY is hiding with his binoculars and a note pad. So I use 500ft to be safe whatever!!

[bigflyingrob]

Some years ago I was an AFI and over the inevitable cup of tea I asked a newish student what his first thoughts would be on an engine failure. Time came and went, I grew a beard, I got another dog and eventauly he came up with "Well someones responsible for this engine failure!" In other words he was working out who to sue! Needless to say I suggested he flew elsewhere!

[Flyin'Dutch']

G,

I can only lay claim to 3 engine failures but have a fair bit of experience in off airport landings.

judgement of position and flare point, all require practice

Off course they do, but they are essentially the same whether you land at an airfield, grass strip or in an unprepared piece of land for a FL.

Unless I missed something.

So far not broken anything with off field landings.

FD

[slim_slag]

Ah, FD, but the reason you don't go around shutting down perfectly good engines on a twin is because it's an inherently dangerous thing to do! In the perfect world all emergency training in all twins would be done in a proper simulator, as required in the States if you want to get twin insurance you can afford. Going down to 50ft, no real problem, as long as you don't shut it all down for real.

Sorry for missing the other thread, I drift in and out, and every time I am foolish enough to post on here I am 100% secure in the knowledge that it's been said before :), and probably recently.

I think taildraggers don't nose over as easily as a tricycle, so are safer in those ugly places you have to land out of necessity as opposed to choice. I have no figures to back me up, but it just feels right to say it...

[map5623]

Unless I have missed something, everyone is talking about the procedures they fly. As an ex gliding instructor my main comsideration is "is there a suitable field available". There is a site that shows what crops look like from the air and unless you have extremely good eye-sight is virtually impossible to see how high crops are and the condition of the field until you are vitually on top of them.
I recently did some flying in Maine in the US,the state seems to consist mainly of trees , a few fields, some water and roads. An engine failure there would have been most interesting, as it would be anywhere there was not "a suitable field".

may the force be with you.
Mike

[Flyin'Dutch']

And your point is?

Of course you can get caught out by having chosen a wrong field.

However if you come to that conclusion at 500ft you are going to be stuffed and best make sure you go into whatever it is, controlled and at minimum speed.

Changing fields this low would end up in tears.

Whereas it is reasonable to expect to be able to retrieve a glider without any damage I think that the stakes are a bit different when you have a FL in an aeroplane. The aim has to be to survive the FL, anything more than that is a bonus.

Experienced glider pilots will choose areas with suitable fields when the going gets less comfortable whereas aeroplane pilots potter along at 1500-2500 ft typically and will get caught out when the engine stops.

By the time they have set the plane up for best glide etc there will be only little time and altitude left to look for a 'perfect field'

FD

[map5623]

FD you answered in 2

However if you come to that conclusion at 500ft you are going to be stuffed and best make sure you go into whatever it is, controlled and at minimum speed.

Changing your mind at this height will end in tears

a) Probably below 500ft before you see/recognise the problem

b) It is better to go through the far hedge/wall at 10 knots rather than hit the first at 60.

[DFC]

Genghis,

The figure of 8 holding pattern works for all aircraft from a microlight to a B747. In fact if you ever end up gliding a B747 and have suficient height, then that is the hold that ATC will put you in at about 6nm on final approach.

====------8--

Look at the above diagram of a centerline and a figure 8 hold. At each end, the aircraft turns towards the landing area thus the aircraft never turns away from the field runway or whatever it plans to land on. (stretch the 8 slightly in the middle!!)

Having arrived at a suitable distance on "final" with height to spare, one simply completes as much or as many of the above holds as are required to burn off the excess height until the pilot judges that it is time to fly directly in and land.

In the case of the B747 as I said it works great as 6 to 8nm but on a microlight about 200 to 500m would be more appropriate.

As for "straight in", I think you misunderstand me. I always advocate an overhead join in the normal circuit unless ATC can give better. However, I was making a reference to making a "final approach" to a farmers field in the case of an engine failure. To clarify what I tries to get across was that if it is possible to land in a field straight ahead easily and safely then why create work by making up some pattern to land in a field under the aircraft!

You do however lead me on to a very good point. Pilots display appaling lookout for traffic during the engine failure procedure. In class EF and G, there can be plenty of flights who don't know you have an engine failure and it is a shame to end a perfectly good forced landing by coliding with a low level military aircraft!!

Yes, I do teach that during low level, there should never be a situation where there is no forced landing option available. However, I have come across plently of PPLs who will do a lovely PFL into a field with a great big forrest at the end and who are totally oblivious to the low level turbulence caused or the absence of any open space should the donkey quit during the climbout.

Side-slip, flap or a combination of both as appropriate is the best way to loose height. If in a position on final where that won't work then the figure of 8 hold ( or part of it) is appropriate. The problem with S turns is that one is progressing towards both the ground and the landing area and if one can not squeze enough turns in to get off the height, one is faced with an ever increasing desperate attempt to do ever tighter turns and longer excursions to each side of final and can at times end up with a steep low speed 90 deg final turn over the hedge.

Hope that answers your questions.

Regards,

DFC

[carbar]

I am a relatively low-hours ppl and would like to practise glide approaches, but my home airfield is quite busy.

I was wondering if it would be legal for me to go to a nearby airfield that is closed in the evening and practice glide approaches. If I do touch-and-go's, I shouldn't have to worry about rule 5, should I?

[Flyin'Dutch']

In principle there is nothing wrong with that but you would be best contact the airfield where you want to do that.

Some are not open to non residents after hours and some do not allow circuits when the airfield is 'closed'

Good plan though to practice this elsewehere if your homefield is busy.

FD

[Genghis the Engineer]

carbar - You are only exempted from rule 5 when taking off or landing at a government or licensed aerodrome. If an airfield is closed, then it does not - that that time - have a licence. Therefore rule 5 applies. What does apply also is that you can't do a planned landing or take-off without the landowners permission - otherwise you are committing trespass. So, do talk to them as FD says.


DFC - Thanks for that, not quite sure how in 15 years of flying that had passed me by up to now. I shall have a play and get a feel for it.

G

[robin]

On the subject of the figure of eight turns, it is important to maintain speed in the turns. You don't want to end up doing too many and then getting too low, then having to stretch the glide.

There was a lot of correspondence about the dangers of too many turns. It can be unsettling when under stress and you can lose focus. Why not use sideslip?

Like most xc glider pilots although we don't want to land out, we are always looking for suitable areas. I still remember (and use) the lessons from Bronze C days - when operating below your 'comfort' level always keep close to the good fields.

In power, I am often astonished at the low levels pilots fly at given their appalling glide performance - similarly how far back their turn to finals happens.

[carbar]

Just to clarify -

Assuming that I had spoken to the airfield's owner and had been given permission to do so, and given that the airfield would be unlicenced (because it is outside its operating hours)

1) I would be allowed to practise glide approaches down to touch-and-go and would be exempted from the '500 ft' rule because I am "landing in accordance with normal aviation practice".

2) However, I would not be exempted from the '1500 ft' rule, so I would have to climb out to greater than 1500 ft if I wanted to circle around to try again.

[bar shaker]

Carbar

Rule 5 is not applicable in any landing/take off, irrespective of whether the field is licensed or not.

The 1500ft rule does not apply at licensed airfields and, as of this year, permit aircraft can now land/TO at licensed airfields where flight over congested areas is required.

I'm sure that's what G meant to say, too.

The draft ammendments to Rule 5 list PFLs as being an exception too.

[engineless john]

Here's the field landing website....

http://www.field-landings.co.uk/

Nothing to add to this discussion other than a lot of the gliding accident reports pertaining to field landings usually contain the phrase "late field selection".

One of the rules of thumb I was trained with was start looking for a field at 1500 to 2000ft, pick one by 1000ft and local soar it, and if you get to 700ft start a circuit and land. Altitudes all judged by eye as well. With a sink rate of 200 ft/min, that means you know where you are going to land about 5 mins before getting there. Never had to do this for real mind.....

Cheers
John

[Genghis the Engineer]

At times like this, it's best to look up rule 5 (which is about 2 pages long, and includes both the 500ft and 1500ft rules). So I have.

The 500ft rule is in rule 5(1)(e)

The exceptions to the 500ft rule are in rule 5(2)(d), part (i) of which says "any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice".

So the 500ft rule doesn't apply when taking off or landing anywhere - just as Barshaker says.



It is indeed the 1500ft rule (Rule 5(1)(a)) that an aerodrome license gets you off, which is the requirement not to fly less than 1500ft above the highest fixed object within 600m AND able to glide clear (and for permit aircraft, there's an added requirement not to fly over any built up area). But it does still apply when there's no licence, or anywhere outside of the normal circuit. The exceptions are in rule 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b)

G

[englishal]

DFC's figure 8 thing sounds interesting, and also sounds like a reasonably good plan. How much height is lost per pattern (something I'll go and try later this week).?

Rgds
EA