Engine Failure Gliding - Final Approach Phase

[Flight Safety]

I searched and didn't find a thread dealing with this subject specifically. I was reading an article in a magazine about the following accident, and it got me to thinking.

Malibu Mirage (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020808X01353&key=1)

In the fatal accident, the pilot lost engine power at FL 190. At one point he still had well in excess of 10,000 feet when he was only 3 miles from BEH (Benton Harbor, the chosen landing field). He made 3 mistakes that I can see. He didn't manage the basic glide well, he allowed ATC to vector him towards the airfield (instead of doing it himself), and he failed fatality to manage the approach phase towards the runway.

It's this last mistake that troubles me the most. Assuming all is done well in gliding successfully to the vicinity of an airfield (or other suitable landing location), how does one actually setup the final approach phase for a glider landing on the runway (or chosen field, etc)?

It seems to me that being able to set the aircraft down at a specific spot on a field or runway is very critical to surviving an engine out emergency. For complex singles (like the above aircraft), gliding to a landing would be very different from a normal powered approach and landing. It seems you have to setup the approach with the correct speed and altitude, decide when to select gear and flaps, etc. so you can raise or lower your glide slope and airspeed to achieve the best touchdown location, thus putting the wheels down where you need to.

The proper technique sounds very specific to an aircraft type. What are the necessary details, and who teaches the final approach phase part of an engine out landing?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

[IO540]

The fracture features for the accident crankshaft was consistent with 14 previous failures of the same part number. The engine manufacturer determined the failures were most likely due to the overheating of the steel during the forging process.

Really great! However that pilot was evidently not watching his airspeed, or (more likely) didn't know that a bank angle increases the stall speed.

I was not taught anything in the UK PPL (other than to find a field and head for it as if it was a runway) but in the FAA PPL they taught me to aim for the start of the downwind leg and to get there at 1500ft AGL. One assumes perhaps 750ft height loss over the downwind leg, and then one loses the remaining 750ft on the (constant bank) turn to landing. This is a perhaps a good technique if the only OK field is close by. Otherwise I would look for a sequence or 2-3 fields one after the other (because managing the heading accurately is far easier than managing the descent rate) in the distance, reasonably upwind if possible, and head for the middle one of the 3.

[Mike Cross]

The technique is easily practiced and is what you do in a PFL.

In a glider you keep the intended landing point in the same place in your vision (neither moving up or down the windscreen) by the use of airbrake and you keep your speed where it should be by the use of the stick.

In a powered aircraft you do the same but usually have flap and power to play with. You may lose either or both so practice sideslips (having first checked the POH to make sure there is no prohibition on their use).

The instructor on my BFR in the US pulled the throttle on returning to the airport in a 172. Too high for the cross runway and not high enough for the intended runway, a typical gliding instructor's trick. When I went for the flap switch he told me I also had an electrical failure. A prolonged sideslip got us right down on to the cross runway and was a total non-event. If your leg gets tired from holding the rudder on just swap over and use the other leg for a while! :E

[Loony_Pilot]

Mike Cross is exactly right, the method is called the "constant aspect " and you keep your landing point in the same place in the window (be it the side window in a gentle spiral or the windscreen during a straight in.

You dont need to know aircraft glide performance (with the exception of the correct speed/pitch) or have to worry about a height to be at at any given point.

It works a dream and I've taught it at PPL level for 3 yrs now ever since I was converted to it on my instructors course.

LP

[Flight Safety]

Swidd, I plan to start in gliders shortly, so I know this will help.

[Jetscream 32]

having deadsticked a malibu and being an assistant rated gliding instructor i can assure you that the principles are the same but the malibu is not the a/c to let the speed bleed away especially when trying to dangle the washing - we dropped the gear at 4000 3 miles from t/down and nearly didnt make it due to the amount we had lower to maintain a descent approach path, Flaps lowered on very short finals with under 1/4 mile to run - luckily got away with it though. :-) :ok:

[Whopity]

If you use the constant aspect technique all you need to know is the Low Key height for you particular aircraft. You can find this out by flying a few glide approaches and working out the best point to take the gear. Anyone who flies a single should have an idea at what height they need to be abeam the touchdown point to assure a landing.

Trim for the correct glide speed and maintain the aspect to the touchdownpoint by varying the bank angle in the final turn.

I recall showing the owner of a Piper Lance how to do this. 2500 ft abeam with the gear halfway around the turn worked well.

[shortstripper]

Bob Hoover seems to manage to dead stick a twin quite easily ... (mutters "bunch of girls blouses" :E )

SS

[Final 3 Greens]

Bob Hoover

1 - well above average stick and rudder man
2 - plans to do it, its not a shock
3 - stays current doing it

Sorry, don't see the relevance to this incident.

[shortstripper]

Sorry, don't see the relevance to this incident.


Sense of humour injection perhaps? :rolleyes:

SS

[Final 3 Greens]

I don't find it humorous when people die, maybe you do.

Probably best to agree to differ and leave it at that.

[shortstripper]

Oh good grief! Why do some people have to get so self righteous over the smallest things?

FYI My "humour" wasn't aimed at the dead pilot, although humour isn't always a bad thing to fall back on in such circumstances (my Grandfather lost many good friends in WW2 and often joked over some of the more unusual ways they departed ... it didn't mean he wasn't sorry to see them die though).

I was simply trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to inject a little humour into a thread which often has the glider pilots tutting and the bar room aces hissing over the complexities of dealing with such dangerous situations! I thought the evil grin would make it obvious it was meant tounge in cheek. But no, I must be a heartless fool who revels in mocking the dead! Ho bloody hum!

SS .... Humourless

[Flight Safety]

Hmm, the constant aspect technique sounds good, I'll be sure to ask about it.

As much as the rotor community discusses and practices auto rotations (their "get down safely" procedure after an engine failure), I'm a little surprised that the Single Engine FW community doesn't take this more seriously. Am I wrong in thinking that the Rotorheads take engine failures more seriously?

[Tinstaafl]

Yes, you're wrong. FW pilots take engine failures very seriously. Can't answer for the UK training system but in Oz glide approaches & engine failure after take off are covered prior to first solo, failures at various altitude prior to solo in the training area, tested for the PPL & CPL, IR & instructor ratings. I also included glide approaches at night for my night rating students.

[John Farley]

He made 3 mistakes that I can see. He didn't manage the basic glide well, he allowed ATC to vector him towards the airfield (instead of doing it himself), and he failed fatality to manage the approach phase towards the runway.

Going back to the beginning, while you may be quite right with the above remarks, the report makes it clear that this was a stall and spin accident.

Certainly, since it happened during a forced landing attempt, the distractions and stress of dealing with an engine failure will not have helped concentration on handling the aircraft but in the end his mistake was to stall and spin inadvertently.

As for your concern about taking ATC vectors I am not sure I understand that. There are fixed wing procedures where ATC can be of enormous help in setting up a good final approach - defined as being lined up with the centreline and 2000 feet above the glidepath at three miles so that you are ideally set up to make your own visually based decisions on when to lower gear, flap, or sideslip in order to plop onto the numbers.

I do not know whether this ATC unit offered such a service (or even had controllers trained in them) - but I don't think we should rule out their potential for help in the right circumstances.

[Final 3 Greens]

I am not familiar BEH airport (or the region it is in), but from a number of hours spent flying in California, I've learned that some GA fields there are quite difficult to pick out against the surrounding ground clutter, even from a mile or two, especially on a hazy day, looking into sun.

Under those circumstances, I wouldn't hesitate to ask ATC for vectors. The hardest thing would be building the mental picture of where I was in relation to the airfield (spatial orientation), as I flew those vectors, under the pressure of dealing with an SEP engine failure.

Also, although I don't have time on a PA46, I recognise that it is a relatively high performance single (compared to an Arrow or similar) and it seemed that the stall/spin might have been a result of the pilot trying to "stretch" the glide. I wonder if the pilot really understood how musch altitude was required for the last mile or two and what the visual picture would look like compared to a normal approach.

An earlier poster, with PA46 experience, explains the high sink rate on final and I wonder if this was a contributing factor to the stall/spin accident?

Whatever the reason, the ppor guy paid a hell of a price for the lesson.

[swh]

For the PC-XII ...

VMC...use standard PFL procedures… high key and low key...try and fly a normal circuit in terms of shape. Had a failure at 30nm, FL150, engaged autopilot track direct to aerodrome with IAS hold for best L/D airspeed (displayed on AI), joined overhead at 9000 ft, then just conducted circuits from 9000 ft down to effect a landing...using autopilot heading mode and IAS hold...and sitting back and just monitoring and managing the situation.

IMC track for the aerodrome...at 7 NM arc the aerodrome until at 7nm/7000 ft, then turn directly at the aerodrome building to VNE, level off at 700 ft, conduct low level circle to land bleeding speed off flap as required to land...could do a fairly normal circuit shape at 700 ft if joining crosswind at VNE (around 240 kt)

Extensive initial and recurrent training was done for this.

:ok:

[Flight Safety]

JF and F3G, I generally agree with both you, if you are uncertain as to the direction of the landing field, then by all means contact ATC for a vector.

However, in this report it appears to me that the pilot allowed ATC to manage the gliding decent. In other words it looks like the pilot allowed ATC to give him a set of vectors designed to help the pilot lose the alttiude he needed prior to entry into the pattern. So I don't think this was the best way for the pilot to coordinate with ATC. I think the pilot should have been in charge of managing the gliding decent himself, while using ATC to help confirm his location and to get a directional vector if it was needed.

I don't think that in a situation like this, that ATC has enough information to actually try and manage the gliding decent, by giving the pilot vectors that help the pilot burn off the necessary altitude prior to entry into the pattern and final approach. I personally think that only the pilot should manage the actual decent to the vicinity of the airfield, since he has the most information about his current energy state. In this report, I think the pilot may have given this responsibility over to ATC, because he was too uncertain as to how to manage the gliding decent himself. At least that's my guess.

I personally think this type of pilot/ATC coordination is dangerous, because I don't know how ATC could successfully manage an unpowered decent to a fixed point. If the pilot doesn't know how, then he's in big trouble.

Tinstaafl, yes, yes, I agree with all of that. I should have made myself more clear by saying that I was referring to the concepts and practices of actually getting the aircraft on the ground in one piece, which helo pilots work pretty hard at.

[Onan the Clumsy]

If you'd ever been a glider pilot, you'd know! I have to disagree with this (albeit on an accademic point) unless you happen to have spoilers installed on your aircraft.

If you'd ever flown a parachute however, then you'd know! ;)


Once you're too low it's over for the selected target, so you either have to be dead on, or give yourself some leeway by aiming a little long. By aiming long and controlling with a slip, you're bracketing your target and if it looks like you're going long, you can slip more (or even S turn), if you're coming in a little short, you can ease off the slipping.

That's what the glider pilots are doing, except they're using spoilers instead of slipping. Under a parachute, you have brakes to vary your glidepath.

Good point about the POH, but by the time you're on approach, that's really just accademic.

[shortstripper]

And you don't think glider pilots use slip as well as spoilers/air brakes?

SS

[sycamore]

Just wish to add a few thoughts to those already on here; an engine failure at altitude in a pressurised single will result in loss of pressurisation and a rapid increase in cabin altitude with attendant possibility of the crew/pax becoming hypoxic unless they have their emergency oxygen and masks on, in short order. On top of the engine emergency, there can be panic amongst pax, to add to the initial problems.How many pilots wear their mask/ around neck when flying above FL100 ? pax briefed ? I`ve test-flown a t/charged twin capable of FL250, and the Malibu as well to that altitude; the twin did not have any serviceable masks fitted,so it was necessary to borrow some for the a/test, but the a.c`s owners regularly flew it across Europe at high alt, and seemed unconcerned about a loss of pressurisation and the physiological effects...... In this case it is not mentioned in the report,but it may have been a factor to consider............
Given the circumstances in this case, it would have been difficult to see the intended airfield as it was directly/.virtually underneath it. A gentle orbit would have been enough to have established a visual, and certainly with an autopilot, one should use the automatics as much as possible; if not, make sure the a/c is well trimmed and in balance at the correct gliding speed... on most light a/c there are placards with all the information,or use a checklist. If the airfield has multiple runways, your options have improved, if it appears to go `pear-shaped` at any time.
You must select an` initial aiming point` about 1/3 to1/2 way along the intended landing surface, even if it is a field, and concentrate the pattern you fly on that point...only; not the threshold.If you fly a `constant aspect` pattern, with about 20-25 deg. of bank you will see if you are too tight, or drifting away, and correct the bank accordingly. Dont select gear/ flaps too early, unless you have to wind them down.... off-airfield, leave them up.
Use `S` turns if you are high, but never turn away from the airfield. Use flaps/gear to now bring your IAP back towards--towards the threshold, so you now aim about 1/4 in...you can hammer the brakes after landing, it`s cheaper than spinning in on short finals....
Finally, if you are going to crash, then crash under control, rather than out of control !

[Flight Safety]

So, if I could summarize what's been said so far (with additions), into a general procedure.

If engine failure occurs during cruise;

1. Select oxygen if needed, then trim the aircraft and establish a glide at best glide speed, which buys the most time and distance.
2. Contact ATC, declare an emergency and get a vector (or vectors) to the nearest airfield.
3. Start the glide to the airfield (or other suitable landing area).
4. Attempt engine restart per the recommended procedure (we'll assume this fails).
5. Try to choose whether you will use a pattern approach or a straight in approach, depending on distance to the landing area, wind direction, etc. It seems you would use a pattern approach if you will arrive high over the airfield, or straight in if you will arrive near the end of the glide.
6. Pick your "near the field" aim point and altitude based on how you'll fly the approach, high key point for a high key/low key pattern, or a point (I'm not sure where or how high) for a straight in.
7. When you arrive near the aim point, switch modes from the "glide to aim point" phase to the "approach and landing" phase.
8. Fly the chosen approach to the landing, timing the use of gear and flaps as required (where do you get this data?). Try to make sure that you have both long and short touch down points available.

Writing this makes me think that it would be good to practice both straight in and pattern approaches (trying and testing gear and flap selection points maybe?).

Regarding pattern approaches, I don't think I would practice a glide pattern approach that relies on any features specific to a home airfield. The only thing that will be common at any airfield is a runway, so that should be the pattern reference. The high key/low key pattern approach seems to rely on the runway only for reference, which makes sense to me. It seems the "constant aspect" approach should rely on the runway only for reference as well.

Please correct any of these comments as needed.

[sycamore]

FS, the straight-in approach is probaly the hardest to judge, but if you use an IAPt. well down the runway/field, if too high you can `s` turn to lose distance.One important point is that one should practice the descent aspect at each configuration change once trimmed at the correct speed, as it is all too easy to select gear/flaps etc, and then find that the` picture`, once stabilised now shows you will fall short.
For info at 25 deg bank, your turn radius varies , at 100 kts it is about 2000 ft, at 150 kts it is 4000 ft. in still air.
I agree with in IMC, increasing descent speed and then using that excess to position when VMC, even accepting a d/w landing....

[Kickatinalong]

You ain't suppose to do 'em at night. Sorry but the rest I agree with just not the last bit. If you get caught it'll get kicked.
Kickatinalong.:ok: :ok: