PFL - Why into a field ?

[PompeyPaul]

I was just wondering. My PFLs are now at a point I'm happy with and I can put the plane down where I want quite accurately. It's always a field though.

In real life why wouldn't you go for a road ? There's quite a few motorways near where I fly, and given the choice I think I'd do much less damage coming into land on that tarmac than into a potentially boggy field.

Why do we always choose fields instead of motorways \ roads ? Is it simply the worry of disturbing traffic on the motorway ? I reckon if I was tanking it @70 mph and I had a cessna come down near me, I'd move out of it's ways and allow it room to land without much risk.

[micromalc]

I dont know which motorways are near you, but in my experience all motorways are busy. You are likely to cause complete chaos if you land on one.
Give me a big open field anyday.

[Slopey]

For a start - you can't guarentee that joe public will react the same way to a cessna landing on the road infront/ontop of them - likely to cause chaos, and serious injury/death etc.

Also - PFLs are one thing - when the donkey stops for real, it may not be within gliding distance of a hard surface, and you can't push the glide. Also, the motorway/road may not be in the appropriate orientation for the prevaling wind on the day - landing into a field into the wind, or on a road (which might be busy or not quite as long and straight as you thought) with a tail wind? I know which I'd take!

Fields are pretty much availiable everywhere, so practicing into them is a good plan.

[dublinpilot]

And what about those doing 45mph, and don't see you in their mirrors? They keep going along at 45mph, just where you're trying to land. Or worse still, those who see you in their mirrors, and hit the brakes.....you've no airspeed left to go over them.....


On top fo this, have a look at the motorway the next time you're on it. I don't know what they are like in the UK, but here in Ireland, they are a mass of lights, road signs and amco barriers.......You'd have a narrow enough runway to get it right, first time, under pressure. The field would give you more room for mistakes.

dp

[KeithTo]

Not to mention power lines that run alongside and over most roads

[OpenCirrus619]

... and not to forget the many "strings" that tend to run across / alongside main roads.

I was told the idea of landing on a road originates in the US of A. In days gone by you would commonly be navigating by following a road, across a wide open space with no traffic for miles. If you can find a section of motorway like this in the UK go for it - I'll stick with the fields.

OC619

[englishal]

...because if you practice landing on a motorway, the CAA may come knocking on your door...Land wherever you can that doesn't kill you, or doesn't kill anyone else ;)

[Superpilot]

If you think you would be able to land much easily on ANY motorway compared to a field you're kidding yourself. Motorways are not as straight as they seem from the air. You're very likely to hit a lamp post or centre reservation or even oncoming traffic! Even if you judged the curvature of the road perfectly, by the time you've had a chance to look ahead you'll notice a great big over-road coming up!

Sure, very James Bond like....but probably one of the worst places to land on.

[mm_flynn]

A lot of US roads are wide, straight, lightly trafficked, with limited street furniture (i.e. signs, cables, camera, etc.) i.e. reasonably OK for landing - I have yet to come across a UK road like that ;). The UK is full of fields, all about the right size to be an airport. Ergo, UK pilots off airport land in fields and US pilots on roads.

[mccourtm]

I believe that the bottom line is this. If you start doing practice PFL's on roads then you run a very major risk of causing traffic chaos or even a bad accident, even if you only go down to 300ft. People driving won't know that you're only practicing.
If you pracice PFL's into a field then there's little or no risk of causing an accident with traffic on the ground. Anyway don't you do power fail landings in the circuit where you practice actually putting it down on the tarmac with idle power from 1000ft. When you do practice PFL's in the training area the main objective is to set up the glide, pick a good spot, note the wind, and then set yourself up so that you can establish yourself on finals into your chosen spot.
If you can do a PFL from the circuit and land safely and if you can get down to finals on a selected field/area in the training area, then in the unfortunate event of a real power failure you would be able to, or at least have a very good chance of putting the plane down in a selected safe spot whatever the selected safe spot happen to be.

Martin.

[big.al]

I believe that the bottom line is this. If you start doing practice PFL's on roads then you run a very major risk of causing traffic chaos or even a bad accident, even if you only go down to 300ft.

And don't forget that you might be invited for tea & biccies with the nice men from the CAA if you do PFLs down to 300ft near a motorway, as you'll be in breach of Rule 5 if a car comes along (which can often happen on roads...):ok:

People have been known to put down on a freeway in the US but personally I wouldn't try it in the UK unless the motorway was closed or under construction (and then only the latter if there's a nice clear - and finished- stretch). Not very likely, so go for a decent field. Usually quite a few of them around, unless you're flying over water or mountainous terrain...

When I was training in Florida the instructor always told me to head for a road. They were invariably straight, long and empty. And plenty to choose from. In the UK there may be plenty to choose from but 99% of the time the other two factors don't apply....:eek:

[BackPacker]

Agreed. Establish the glide and do the other immediate actions, then simply look for the best place to put it down. Field, road, water, whatever at that point in time gives you the best chance of survival.

I was flying over Rotterdam yesterday, via one of the standard, published VFR approaches at 1500'. In case of an engine failure, you have three options there:
- Very tall buildings with side streets in between, with parked cars, lampposts, traffic lights, pedestrians, you name it.
- A two-times-four-lane highway with lighting in the median, sound-reflecting walls on the side and these portal-things overhead with the matrix signs
- The river - and that's not even reachable from every location in that arrival

My choice: establish a bit faster than best glide, approach to the highway running with the traffic. Use the excess speed to fly level over one portal, then duck under the next, then put her down as my speed matches that of most other traffic - most likely in the two leftmost lanes. I'd rather be in a collision with a car at 20 knots speed difference than fly into a building at stall speed. And if my time is up anyway, I'd rather make the papers than not!

Unfortunately, that highway is also one of the most severe congestion spots in the country, so it's very likely that there's a traffic jam in any case.

[Chilli Monster]

Why do we always choose fields instead of motorways \ roads ? Is it simply the worry of disturbing traffic on the motorway ? I reckon if I was tanking it @70 mph and I had a cessna come down near me, I'd move out of it's ways and allow it room to land without much risk.

Do you really trust the average dip $hit, middle lane hogging, non rear view mirror using, non situationally aware British motorist (or Eastern European Truck Driver) to see you and get out of the way?

Nope - field every time! :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You can land in the river in Rotterdam with the right airplane.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ChuckEllsworth/RotterdamBridge.jpg

[tangovictor]

PP this is a wind up isn't it ? please tell me you didn't seriously consider it

[tigerbatics]

Many years ago I landed a Tiger Club Stampe on the M25 between Sevenoaks - Godstone for a PFL. That was just as that section of the motorway was nearly finished and before it opened. No traffic; no people; very quiet, just a couple of cows watching from a field. That was why we carried on, landed and came to a full stop.

Don't fancy trying it now.

[Final 3 Greens]

You force land in the best available option.

[BigAl's]

I am totally convinced Mr. Paul has to be in line for the 'wind up merchant of the year' award. It's genius.... much like pulling the pin out of a grenade and casually tossing it into a room before disapearing off over the horizon to watch it all kick off from a comfortable distance. ;)

[Whirlybird]

It's simple really....

PRACTICE forced landings - choose a field so as not to break rule 5, annoy people, and end up with your flying career ended before it even started.

REAL forced landings - put it down anywhere appropriate in order to survive (and save the aircraft, though that's a non-essential bonus). Or as the nice man at the CAA Safety Evenings says: "Hit the softest thing you can find at the lowest possible speed".

I heard once of someone who had engine failure over New York, and glided under control through an office window, taking off the aircraft wings but landing safely, and with only minor injuries. Don't know if it's true or not. Would certain brighten up a bored office worker's day though, wouldn't it? :)

[SNS3Guppy]

I've made a lot of landings on roads, fields, dirt strips, gravel space, and other such places in the course of my work, on a regular basis. I've also had occasion to make forced landings over the years, and have experienced in the order of 40 or so engine failures (11, I believe, in single engine airplanes). The last one occured last year in a turbine powered single engine tailwheel airplane, in a very mountainous area, inside a narrow canyon. It resulted in a forced landing on a hillside.

What I teach students regarding forced landings is first and foremost, fly the airplane. Don't get so caught up in what you land on that you don't make it to the landing. That happens more often than you might think. Right in that same vein are the folks that decide too low to change their chosen landing site when they get close enough to see that it isn't as glorious a place as they thought.

With the airplane under control, pick the best option for the landing. It may be a road, it may not; don't limit yourself Remember that any straight line you see on the ground will almost invariably have a powerline or fence or ditch alongside it, and almost always, intersecting it. Remember that most fields are not perfectly flat, and if it's got crops, can be very dangerous (tends to turn airplanes upside down, rip off gear, etc).

Get in the habit of staying current with simulated engine failures, and get in the habit of seeing up close what you've picked out from far above. Learn to judge a surface by the color of the crop or grass, the nature of a plowed field, softness, etc.

I very firmly believe that students who have only ever been given practice engine-out's to a landing on a runway, have been done a grave injustice. It's a crime to instruct a student, and send that student out into the world, that unprepared. No pilot should experience an engine failure and subsequent forced landing for the first time on their own. It should be familiar, having been there many times before under the guidance of a competent teacher. I like to take students into the fields at low altitude so they can see the obstacles that were invisible at altitude; it's an eye opener.

Students should learn that rough fields are invariably short, and all too often have obstacles. Therefore, a soft landing and a short field landing are really the same thing...though they're always taught as two different techniques. Likewise, most of the time a short field is a soft field, especially in rough conditions...and the airplane should be flown accordingly.

Pilots are all too infrequently shows the difference between minimum sink airspeed, and maximum glide airspeed; both are important, but most often I see instructors only teaching maximum glide. One should touch down at minimum sink to minimize vertical forces on landing. One should touch down in water at minimum sink too...but all too often I hear pilots describng their idea of a water landing...holding it off and stalling into the water. Anyone who has any water landing experience understands the fallacy of this, and a few glassy water landings to the prospective emergency student would make this abundantly clear, and why one should maintain a minimum speed and rate of descent all the way to impact.

How about landing in trees? I hear pilots telling me they'll stall an airplane into the trees, which is a great way to really hurt yourself. Rather than trying for those soft looking tops (they're not), try flying the airplane to the ground at the treeline and letting the wings take the impact forces; put the fuselage between the tree trunks in order to survive. Stop your energy at the tree tops, and you fall vertically. If you're in a pine forest or other tall trees, this means you get dropped from tree top height, which is an excellent way to be seriously injured or killed.

Don't restrict yourself to one surface or another. You may want to intentionally use a fence or a wingtip or water or tall grass or even corn to prevent going too far when the forced landing space is very limited; better to damage the airplane than damage you. Deploying flaps before landing and leaving the gear up may keep you upright and let the flaps take some of the energy; a good tradeoff for your life. Open up your mind and consider all the possibilities. Is the surface uphill, or downhill? Is one nearer help than another? Is there road access if fire or rescue personnel need to get to you?

Every time you fly, practice evaluating the ground beneath you as you enjoy the view, and review these elements in your mind to make it a habit. Picking a forced landing site may be limited to only one choice. If so, then take it. But where you may have more than one option, choose according to the bigger picture. It's in your best interest.

[radicalrabit]

Caithness and Sutherland are about the only places in the uk where you have a long empty stretch of road safe to put a plane down on, but then there are the suicidal sheep, deer and every few hours a van that doubles as a bus a post van breadvan and.. but I digress, Far more more fields to get down in really.

and then you have to think of the passing places once your landing has completely blocked the road.....after six or seven hours you might get someone going past who could help you :ok: but ther batteries on your epirb will have gone dead by then anyway

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I've also had occasion to make forced landings over the years, and have experienced in the order of 40 or so engine failures (11, I believe, in single engine airplanes).

***************************************

What were you flying?

I have had a few engine failures over the years but never had one in a single that required a forced landing.

Were these failures in certified aircraft with certified engines?

[mostlytossas]

I'd be changing my maintenace organisation if I was you.

[Flying Binghi]

One thing I would add to this thread... If you are concerned about having an engine failure over unsuitable terrain - fly higher for a better glide distance, or fly around the bad lands (airspace allowing)

A new chum to the flying game recently told me how he runs his flight planning through google earth looking for more terrain freindly routes (dont ask me how its done, its a bit new tech to me)

[SNS3Guppy]

What were you flying?

I have had a few engine failures over the years but never had one in a single that required a forced landing.

Were these failures in certified aircraft with certified engines?


Yes, all certified engines, ranging from the A-65 to the R-2600 the T-56. The last one, resulting in a forced landing as previously described was a TPE-331-10. I'd say more of them in radial engines than any, but those who have radial experience will probably understand that.

The Garrett (TPE-331) involved the failure of the rear turbine bearing seal, with loss of all engine oil. I discovered it at the bottom of a canyon at 150' AGL, when I pushed the power up. The EGT came up normally, with a perfectly functioning gas generator, but only about fifteen percent torque. It increased to nearly 56% for several seconds before dropping to zero, without any signs of trouble from the gas generator section. Just no oil to move the propeller, hence no torque. It didn't feather, obviously no NTS...it just sat out there flopping around until I touched down shortly thereafter.

Other failures have ranged from engine oil loss with a cracked governor stephead base to lifted cylinder heads, to pressure carb failures, blocked induction, one carb ice failure in IMC with a subsequent failure of the carb heat control, etc. Most have been relative non-events.

I'd be changing my maintenace organisation if I was you.


Most of the failures occured with 6 different employers, some excellent maintenance, some very rough operating conditions with respect to the engine, over the course of more than 20 years, in a number of different airplanes. In most every case, maintenance was not the culprit.

A new chum to the flying game recently told me how he runs his flight planning through google earth looking for more terrain freindly routes (dont ask me how its done, its a bit new tech to me)


A useful technique in planning flight through mountainous country is to use a roadmap in conjunction with your other charts and publications. Highways often make use of the best transit through the mountainous areas, including the best passes and valleys, and give a clue as to how best to base your routing...as well as providing an excellent navigation tool, and quite possibly a forced landing site, beneath you most of the way.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Guppy, I read all your comments on forced landings and you have some very good advice.

However I do disagree with this part.

One should touch down at minimum sink to minimize vertical forces on landing. One should touch down in water at minimum sink too...but all too often I hear pilots describng their idea of a water landing...holding it off and stalling into the water. Anyone who has any water landing experience understands the fallacy of this,

That does not hold true in all circumstances as it can vary depending on what you are flying and the water conditions, sometimes it is better to full stall on the water.

[MidgetBoy]

Another reason, since it's practice you might say "Lets use this road even though theres people on it, we aren't touching down and we'll overshoot at 200feet agl or w/e" And then you end up losing your engine and you can't turn to a field..

[SNS3Guppy]

That does not hold true in all circumstances as it can vary depending on what you are flying and the water conditions, sometimes it is better to full stall on the water.


Landing on waves on on swells with a roughened surface is different than landing on glassy water. Even the most experienced water pilots often can't judge height above glassy water. Even water birds crash into glassy water. When discussing water landings with the common denominator, particularly in an audience that is not primarily made up of experienced water or float pilots, I see zero advantage in ever suggesting that attempting stalled landings into water is a wise idea.

Among other issues, water which is rough enough for a reference isn't flat. It's made of moving hills and valleys; swells and troughs. Very often the pilot who's landing on them will find that when he thinks he's at the water level, suddenly it either rises up to meet him when he flared into a trough, or it falls away leaving him to fall out of the stall or spashdown...which can prove disasterous.

Holding minimum sink creates the minimum steady state vertical descent speed. Vertical speed is by far the most critical. Pilots often erroneously believe that they can judge height and minimize their forward and vertical speed by stalling the airplane onto the water...just like they think they can do it into the trees. This fallacy, usully borne because the pilot is ignorant of the challenges of landing on water, increases the liklihood of a bad outcome substantially. I counsel students, particularly those at any certification level who have not had hands-on actual water landing experience, to put every thought of stalling into the water out of their mind.

In most light airplane, minimum sink equates very closely to the published sea level Vx speed. A little experimentation can quickly nail down what the number really is for a given airplane. Holding that speed until impact will usually yield the most survivable chance for a pilot to make a successful ditching. It also means the pilot doesn't react to the illousion of depth perception over water, and try to flare high. If the pilot is taught not to flare but to hold that stable descent to the water the probability of a good outcome will increse significantly.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Landing on waves on on swells with a roughened surface is different than landing on glassy water. Even the most experienced water pilots often can't judge height above glassy water. Even water birds crash into glassy water. When discussing water landings with the common denominator, particularly in an audience that is not primarily made up of experienced water or float water landing experience, to put every thought of stalling into the water out of their mind.

We obviously have different training methods, I first teach them to make all landings on the water with the power at idle right to touch down in the normal attitude for the airplane being flown so they learn to judge height accurately while landing. ( except of course on glassy water... Note: I do not consider full stall landings normal attitude and treat them seperate just like glassy water is a seperate method. )

In most light airplane, minimum sink equates very closely to the published sea level Vx speed. A little experimentation can quickly nail down what the number really is for a given airplane. Holding that speed until impact will usually yield the most survivable chance for a pilot to make a successful ditching. It also means the pilot doesn't react to the illousion of depth perception over water, and try to flare high. If the pilot is taught not to flare but to hold that stable descent to the water the probability of a good outcome will increse significantly.

I guess we do not have the same ideas regarding judging height during landings on water, I see no reason that a pilot should not be taught to flare on the water exactly the same as on land.

What will happen to a pilot who is taught only power assisted landings on the water if the engine fails and they are forced to land without the power " crutch " to find the water?

[Andy_RR]

I guess we do not have the same ideas regarding judging height during landings on water, I see no reason that a pilot should not be taught to flare on the water exactly the same as on land.


I guess it depends on how accurately you can judge the height. I assume minimum sink in a C152 would be about 250-300feet/min or 2-3kt

Assuming that if you stall the aircraft and all lift disappears (which it doesn't), then stalling at 50' will give you 33kt vertical speed at the bottom. Stalling at 10' will give you 15kt.

Assuming typical-ish C152 numbers, you will arrive with 50% less total energy by stalling it on at 10', compared to minimum-sinking it on, however if you just consider vertical energy (is there such a thing?) it is 25x higher.

These would be upper bound figures, since the lift doesn't disappear instantaneously with a stall, so your vertical acceleration would be nowhere near 1g. If the wing continued to produce at least 0.5g lift during your flare and descent, then a 10' flare wouldn't reduce your final total impact energy all that much, but the 'vertical impact energy' would still be 12x than using minimum sink.

On the other hand, carrying the extra speed of a minimum sink ditching might increase the risk of a nose-over when you have fixed landing gear?

A

[Flying Binghi]

"I counsel students, particularly those at any certification level who have not had hands-on actual water landing experience, to put every thought of stalling into the water out of their mind"

My experience totaling less then 10 hours on floats has shown me that Guppy's advice is on the money.

[SNS3Guppy]

I guess we do not have the same ideas regarding judging height during landings on water, I see no reason that a pilot should not be taught to flare on the water exactly the same as on land.

What will happen to a pilot who is taught only power assisted landings on the water if the engine fails and they are forced to land without the power " crutch " to find the water?


Chuck, we're talking about two different subjects. You're talking about instructing seaplane students, I'm talking about discussing emergency procedures for private pilots who haven't any experience landing on water.

Of course a float pilot is taught to land on water. However, we're talking here, in the private pilot's forum, about making forced landings, not normal landings. When an individual is already up to his neck is stress, with his first time setting down in the water, providing even the remotest encouragement to stall it into the water is ludicruous.

I'm not sure where you came up with powered on vs. power off water landings; this is about gliding to a forced landing site after an engine failure...hence the purpose of minimum sink vs. best glide.

[sternone]

This is an example that you better not land on a road... i would have taken the golf course next to it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4Xa8SsNT5g

[Dr Eckener]

Roads are dangerous enough, without some pillock trying to land an aeroplane on one. You took the thing in the air, it is therefore your responsibility to make sure you do not injure/kill and innocent parties on the ground. This should come before saving your own skin.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm not sure where you came up with powered on vs. power off water landings; this is about gliding to a forced landing site after an engine failure...hence the purpose of minimum sink vs. best glide.

Guppy I am aware this is a private pilots forum and the subject is power off forced landings, and I am in agreement that minimum sink vs. best glide speed will give the best landing results in most cases.....

...where I have difficulty with your advice is in judging height above the water, maybe I have misunderstood what you are saying but judging height above water is not difficult at all and you should be able to glide to the surface at minimum sink airspeed and then contact the water at whatever attitude would give the best results for the conditions.

Most of the posters here are Brits and they are relating to the area where they fly and for sure landing on their roads is far different from the roads in North America generally speaking.....however if a Brit has an engine failure over water the chances are he/she will be over the ocean as there are not all that many lakes in Britain that they couldn't glide to land from. So back to the English Channel or the North Sea and a engine out forced landing with very high seas running...the object of the exercise is to contact the water at the lowest possible forward speed and lowest vertical sink rate to avoid slamming into the wall of water that will be a large wave. Landing on waves and swells with a roughened surface is different than landing on glassy water. In that case I would suggest a full stall touchdown to minimize forward speed as you hit the wall of water.

I don't understand why you would consider landing with the lowest kinetic energy as being ludicrous?

I have probably misunderstood what you posted and thought that I would elaborate on your advice that full stall landings have zero advantage, because there are instances where minimum forward speed is critical such as landing on the face of a very large wave...of which there are plenty all around the British Isles.

Anyhow we are chasing our tails in circles here due to it being the internet and sometimes it is difficult to glean exactly what the poster means.....

...so in closing I would like to opine that judging height above water is not a big deal unless it is glassy water then it is impossible to judge height.

By the way I have on numerous occasion full stalled an airplane onto glassy water during training sessions...but you have to be in the right place at the right height as you stall.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth View Post:

I guess we do not have the same ideas regarding judging height during landings on water, I see no reason that a pilot should not be taught to flare on the water exactly the same as on land.

Andy_RR responded:


I guess it depends on how accurately you can judge the height.

Andy if someone has been issued a Private Pilots License would it be unreasonable to expect that the individual be able to judge height during the landing phase of flight?

Or has flight training been dumbed down to the level of teaching monkeys to ring a bell to get a banana?

To suggest that judging height over water is any more difficult than over land unless it is glassy water is being disingenuous in my opinion.

[SNS3Guppy]

I don't understand why you would consider landing with the lowest kinetic energy as being ludicrous?


Once again, falling out of a stall doesn't equate to the lowest kinetic energy.

A landing surface that is rising and falling makes judging height difficult, especially for one who has not landed on the water before. My answer would be different if I were responding to seaplane pilots experiencing an engine failure.

No, if one learns to land on land, landing on water, glassy or rough, isn't at all the same. Landing forces can be dramatically increased by attempting to stall it onto the surface of the water.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this SNS3

After having made tens of thousands of water landings maybe my view of what the differences are is skewed by experience and I am assuming to much.

I can see that regardless of what my opinion is ( a full stall onto very large waves gives the best chance of lowest impact vs hitting it at higher speed at an attitude and air speed that allows the airplane to bounce and keep flying to the next impact.) you and I are not going to agree.

You say landing on land and water is not the same and I agree, however I fail to understand why judging height would be any different unless the waves were very high...then of course the surface is changing height wise between the waves.

By the way do you have any open sea landing experience ..by open sea I mean landing and taking off ocean experience?

I also must have been teaching this wrong for over thirty years on large sea planes and should not have payed any attention to how the large sea planes were landed on rough seas by the military guys.......

[Andy_RR]

Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth View
Andy_RR responded:

I guess it depends on how accurately you can judge the height.
Andy if someone has been issued a Private Pilots License would it be unreasonable to expect that the individual be able to judge height during the landing phase of flight?

Under normal circumstances this is not an unreasonable expectation. The discussion was about an unusual landing, with potentially unusual visual cues in what could quite justifiably be a tense situation. Misjudging height for a flared, full stall landing is somehow not possible under these circumstances?

Having said that, I've done some pretty bad landings myself under normal circumstances and 'they' gave me a PPL - not one actually, but two! :}

A

[tggzzz]

One thing I would add to this thread... If you are concerned about having an engine failure over unsuitable terrain - fly higher for a better glide distance, or fly around the bad lands (airspace allowing)

Another avenue to explore: get training in how to select where to land without an engine. This is standard tuition at gliding/sailplane clubs, because people regularly "land out".

They also do regular training in engine failures at 100ft-1000ft when climbing at 35 degrees. The rule of thumb is that if the mud floats in front of your face, you've got it about right; if it plasters itself over the inside of the canopy then you've been too enthusiastic.

And being told to deliberately enter a spin at 800ft (just to liven up the downwind leg and check you really are prepared to put the stick forward) is also interesting.

Motto: leave that nasty noisy dangerous engine where it belongs: on the ground.

[BackPacker]

The rule of thumb is that if the mud floats in front of your face, you've got it about right; if it plasters itself over the inside of the canopy then you've been too enthusiastic.

I knew it. Those glider pilots are all just slops. Take off from grass, land all over the place, get their feet dirty, hop back in and don't even vacuum the inside of their planes. I bet that if you sample the wing tanks, there's only water coming out too!

[Hyperborean]

Driving through former Yugoslavia some 30 years ago I was puzzled when the road became suddenly straighter, wider and better maintained. I then noticed threshold markings followed about 1km later by a second set. At this point the road returned to "normal". No doubt one could have landed on it but I suspect that this would have provoked serious interest from the security services. I also have a vague memory from the same era of a photograph of an RAF aircraft, jaguar I think, parked under a british motorway bridge. It was an exercise carried out just prior to the opening of a new stretch road.

[RatherBeFlying]

I bet that if you sample the wing tanks, there's only water coming out too!This time of year, glider pilots add antifreeze:}

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I heard once of someone who had engine failure over New York, and glided under control through an office window, taking off the aircraft wings but landing safely, and with only minor injuries. Don't know if it's true or not. Would certain brighten up a bored office worker's day though, wouldn't it?
Well, Whirls, it didn't brighten my day. Here I am sitting on a cloud playing my harp... guess how I got here?
I was figuring out a spreadsheet, sitting at my computer in my office on the 25th floor of the Empire State Building in New York when something made me glance up.
The last thing I saw was PA28, prop stopped, head-on, about 8 feet away and filling my office window.... :}