Pick a field

[M52]

Just re validating my PPL and looking at PFLs. No problems with the approach but still not 100% clear on what constitutes a good field in terms of surface and what that looks like from 2000'. Idea is to avoid the ploughed ones but what does that look like from upstairs? Need to get this right as I'm looking at LAA home builts and those engines do fail from time to time...

[ak7274]

Certified engines are also known to fail.

[taxistaxing]

On my PPL I was taught:

- Slope. If you can see a slope at all from 2,000 it will be steep when you get to low level, so you need to be landing upwards;

- Surface. Ideally not ploughed, also ideally not with long crops which can flip the aircraft on landing. If you have to land on a ploughed field, land along the furrows rather than across them. Very green/yellow fields probably have long crops, whereas 'brown' fields are probably earth or stubble, so a better bet. Most fields will not have long crops in the autumn/winter;

- Size/shape. The bigger the better obviously and preferably wide so that you have a maximum of approach angles;

- Smoke. Look for smoke to determine wind direction at low level and try to land into wind;

- Safety. Look out for obstructions. Most dangerous are obviously wires, but also farm machinary, hay bales, parked tractors etc;

Also make sure you choose one as close as possible to your position as it's easier to lose height on approach than it is to extend the glide.

Finally, I was taught that you should be regularly looking for suitable fields near your track during the cruise as part of a FREDA check, imagining "where would I go if the engine were to quit now".

[snapper1]

This might help. It was created for glider pilots but info on crops is relevant to everyone.
Field Crops - Home Page (http://www.fieldselection.co.uk/)

[Cows getting bigger]

One you can reach whilst landing into wind.

[ChrisA87]

Snapper beat me to it- very useful website.

With slopes, look for water (namely rivers) near fields, this will indicate potentially sloping ground (towards the water).

Maybe it's my gliding background, but I'm always looking at landable fields, not just at FREDA checks. As I progress down track I will always have a field or area of fields selected.

[taxistaxing]

Yep quite right you should do it as often as possible. Adding it into the FREDA just ensures you're definitely doing it every 5 mins or so, in case it has slipped your mind.

[RTN11]

The key thing is that you can make it. A well flown approach into a poor field is far better than a poor approach into a good field. The other point is to land into wind, well worth trying some tailwind landings back at the airfield to see just how hard they are!

The main things which seem to hurt people are large standing crop, where the undercarriage hits it and you flip upside down. Similar story with landing against a plow furrow.

The other thing is wires going across the field, but these can be difficult to see from 2000'+ and the smaller ones can only come into view at a few hundred feet. If you are carrying out a well flown approach to a field well within range, you should have enough height and control to then manoeuvre away from any cables, either over them or under them, or overshoot to the next field. If you were pushing your luck with the field to begin with, chances are you will hit the cables.

Beyond that, you'd be surprised at just how little room you need if you stall it in and brake hard. I'd rather be hitting the fence/wall at the far end at 10-20Kts than hitting the fence/wall at the start of the field at 70kts.

[Pittsextra]

thats a great site Snapper thanks

[Pace]

RTN11 makes some good points especially about it being better to pick a bad field with a good controlled approach than a good field with a bad approach.
The main point to consider is to keep the aircraft flying under control.
Very few are killed or seriously injured where the aircraft is flown to the ground under control.
They are killed by stall/spin accidents.
Even taking out a hedge is unlikely to kill you while a ploughed field may remove the nose you will probably walk away.
Have one chosen landing area but keep others 45 degrees left or right as options if your chosen area is not working out or has some unseen drawback be prepared to smartly take an option.
Above all do not stretch the glide and keep the aircraft flying!

Pace

[BackPacker]

Agree with the above. And for those looking at that glider site, remember that glider pilots generally have more experience, but above all far more time to select a suitable field (minutes vs. seconds) and a far better glide performance to reach a good field.

In a SEP your time and options are very, very limited. Don't waste time trying to find the best field. Instead, make a good, controlled approach into the nearest field that seems good enough.

[Fuji Abound]

Do you drive around the country side - better still do you walk?

If you do make a point of asking yourself - "would I land in that field". Ask the question of yourself throughout the year. Chances are lots of those fields will be around your flying cabbage patch. So next time you fly out of your local airport relate what you have seen to what you now see from the aircraft.

You will surprise yourself how quickly your field selection from the air relates to your findings on the ground.

Next, make a point of flying into some of the more challenging strips. Its good fun. More to the point it will improve your landings no end and you will be surprised how much more comfortable you are landing on a slope (and I mean a proper slope), between trees or other challenges that might present - the first few times you will find it really disconcerting, so perhaps take along a seasoned veteran of farm strip flying. I can think of some perfectly delightful farm strips that scare the hell out of even seasoned flyers the first few times - we are really quite cosseted with respect to the usual "airports" most of us operate from. The fact that they are "scary" make it all the more likely the pilot will loose control during the approach. As I think Pace has already said that's what causes severe accidents, but telling pilots not to loose control is all very well, far better to "know" you can land on an up slope between trees and crops because you have done it before.

Finally, as often as you can, when you land decide where you will touch down and make a point of accepting nothing less. Aim to be precise. Don't allow yourself to float that extra 100 feet. As you get better do the same with glide approaches. You will be amazed how many pilots cant land in a 50 foot box with full control of the throttle never mind without. Enter a few competitions - they are great fun and will improve the accuracy of your landings no end.

Should the worst ever happen you will be really surprised what a difference these three suggestions might make.

Your chances of a good forced land will be immeasurably improved by good field selection, accurate control of the approach and potentially just as important, a precise touch down. All of a sudden you can comfortably get into really tight fields feeling confident you will keep control all the way down.

(Of course you could pull the handle and forget all about this :bored:)

(Edited to add: and if you want some real fun book a week (or day) flying a float plane. You will find it is another way of improving your handling and landing selection significantly - but perhaps surprisingly. Why? Well try it in Scotland. You will be flying in very close proximity to the terrain - tight turns into lochs, keeping the aircraft under control, to setup a stable approach, gaining an appreciation of the tell tale signs as to what the wind is doing - there are no wind socks, no helpful controllers to tell you, and surprisingly the wind on one loch can be 180 degrees different from another loch one valley away. Its good fun as well.

In just the same way for something different you will learn so much from flying a glider or with a glider pilot. Doing it every day all day is the way to improve your skills and once learned, whilst its always good to say in practice, it is also a bit like riding a bike)

[Pace]

(Of course you could pull the handle and forget all about this )

Fuji

When I get around to taking some hours on the Cirrus even I have been converted to using the handle in Certain engine out situations :ok:

Pace

[007helicopter]

even I have been converted to using the handle in Certain engine out situations

beginning of a slippery slope !!:E

[dobbin1]

It is important to land into wind. If you land with a 10kt tailwind you will have almost twice the energy to dissipate when compared to landing with a 10kt headwind. This energy has to be used up, either in a much longer landing roll or in some other undesirable way. A small field into wind will probably be a better bet than a larger field downwind.

[Pace]

Dobbin

Agreed the ideal is a headwind and a good brisk headwind but if things are not working out for your landing into that headwind landing spot and you realize you will take out the line of trees in front do not be put off taking a crosswind into better profile fields left or right of you.
The biggest killer is fixation on one spot pulling back to make it and stalling in!

Pace

[cats_five]

For gliding I was taught size, shape, slope, surface, stock, obStructions. Maybe there was a 7th S!

Fences across fields often show themselves in a subtle colour change, posts for phone cables or a single power cable by a little circle round the base. Don't fly between trees on the approach if at all possible as the trees can hide posts carrying cables.

If the field is big enough (think East Anglia) you can get away with a downwind landing, and top choice in the glider world for landing is a stubble field. The farmer doesn't take a very expensive combing through a field with a dodgy surface.

Permanant pasture isn't good as it's often rough, but if it's all you can find...

(edit) I am a map freak so I always have a good look at the map (OS, not just the 1/2 mil) and Google Earth before I (try to) go anywhere new, to get a feel for where it might be hard to find a field and where it might be easier. However in a glider I have a good idea I'm going to need a field for a long time in advance.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, if you look at your chances of finding a suitable field from an agricultural standpoint, you will realise that it is the time of year which is a major factor in finding a good field....

Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, most fields will be waterlogged, unless frozen.
March, Apr, May; Firm ground and short crops in almost every field.
June, July, Aug; Lots of growth = tall crops. Only harvested grass fields or grazed pasture land available ('Hey you, watch my cows!')
Sept, Oct; Most fields now harvested, but some now ploughed up again.

If size really matters, some counties have some very small, stone walled fields (Yorkshire, Scotland etc.) Whereas Linolnshire and that flat Southern area has some very large 60+ acre flat fields.

[RTN11]

size, shape, slope, surface, stock, obStructions. Maybe there was a 7th S!


Surroundings.

Last on the list, but when it comes down to a choice of field, where are you going to go after you land. Golf clubs are ideal, as there's usually a bar :ok:

[POBJOY]

The clue is in the word 'forced'.
Time will be against you,so you have to keep whatever 'system' you choose SIMPLE,and easy to recall.
Fly the machine
Find a spot (that you can reach)
Fly the machine
Be decisive and once you make the decision give it your best shot,rather than be swayed by doubt.
Fly the machine.
Better to make a poor decision,and execute it well than delay and have no choice.
Fly the machine.
Plant it on the desired spot, not to fast, and under full control.

Get some 'sidslipping' practice, it can be a real lifesaver and offers an even better view of whats ahead.Does not have to be full bloodied sideways,but even a gentle 'slip' under full control makes for a very controlled engineless approach.

If you think you may not clear an obstuction and can not turn to avoid DO NOT try to ease the nose up early to get over. Keep your best speed UP and aim just below its top and ease over at the appropriate time.

During 'en-route' stage of any flight keep up to date on the local 'WIND DIRECTION',.Flying downwind or x-wind will give more distance from a given height,and knowing the direction will be one less 'box to tick'

A few glider flights is time well spent.

Jot down FLDIV on your flightplanning form just to remind you it can happen rather than it will.
Being 'AWARE' cuts down the delay in taking action and gives you an edge.

Dont bore the other club members in the bar with tales of how many fields you flew over and could have landed in.

[Pass your message]

I am currently training for my night rating, any advice on forced landings at night?

[RTN11]

any advice on forced landings at night?

The only advice I was given - turn the landing light on, if you don't like what you see, turn it off :}

[Fuji Abound]

Most night flying is around the local cabbage patch. I am therefore addressing the reality that very few GA pilots go any distance in SEPs at night.

Keep you eyes open during the day. Build up an awareness of the local cabbage patch. It will give you an idea where to go at night - and perhaps more importantly where not to go.

Its about as good as it gets.

[Pace]

The only advice I was given - turn the landing light on, if you don't like what you see, turn it off

Fly a Cirrus :) One occasion when I would pull the chute in the event of an engine failure :ok:

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

When teaching the forced approach I spend hardly anytime on field selection criteria. Close, Open (no obstacles on the approach) and Flat in that order are the only criteria care about.

My 02 cents

1) 80% of all engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. Flying schools should stop concentrating on teaching complicated pneumonics for selecting the "right field" and obsessing about the relative differences in the suitability of crop types or farm animal species, and spend more time in educating pilots on how not to cause the engine to fail and if it does, get it going again

2) A uniform 9 Gee deceleration from 60 kts to 0 kts requires about 25 feet. Obviously it would be hard to get a perfectly even deacceleration of that magnitude but the take away is you don't need a lot of room to stop.

3) The instant the engine stops the insurance company just bought the airplane. The only criteria for success in a forced landing is no passenger injuries. What the airplane looks like when it comes to a stop is utterly irrelevant, see point 2 above.

4) Further to point 3 the accident statistics clearly show that the key to survival is having the aircraft hit the ground in as close to a wings level, level flight attitude as possible with a short ground run. The "killer" accidents are the ones where the aircraft hits the ground steeply banked/nose down not under control or hits a solid object at flying speed. Keeping the aircraft under control is the most important thing a pilot can do if the engine fails.

5) if you are cruising along sitting behind a certified Continental or Lycoming engine which had its fuel drained of contaminates, had a normal run up, is supplied with sufficient fuel from a properly selected tank, and you are regularly checking it's engine gauges and checking for carb ice......the chance it will suddenly and without warning, fail is basically zero.

6) The only truly safe way to deal with a night engine failure is to always be in gliding distance of a lighted airport.

[RatherBeFlying]

In gliders, you usually have several minutes to pick out a field. A number of times I have spent a good part of an hour or more hanging by my fingernails near a chosen field until I either got away or had to use it.

Wave sites can be different and once on my way back in serious sink in an L-33 low performance glider (3rd flight in type), I was checking out various crops very shortly before finding that the best field was where I needed to land. That day the towplane managed two more miles than I did from release:\

In power, you are coming down at 800'/min; so don't look too far if flying a couple thousand feet up. Frankly if the weather is keeping me that low, I start playing hopscotch from one decent looking field to the next and will go off track to keep good fields within reach.

As BPF has wisely noted a successful forced landing is one where you and the passengers walk away.

Make a GOOD approach to the field that you are absolutely sure you can make halfway down. A touchdown well into the field will do a lot to avoid wires.

If you see a power line, i.e. poles, at the boundary, aim for well above a pole and plan to add flaps and/or sideslip once over.

Assume there is a pole line around the field boundaries and along any roads or driveways -- and then look for any pole lines running across the field as there was in my first outlanding.

My outlanding checklist is SSSLOW

Surface
Slope
Stock
Length
Obstacles
Wind

A deeper problem is that so many pilots are enamored of a 2-mile final on a glideslope similar to an ILS. Get used to power off approaches so you are familiar with where you will contact terra firma.

[Pace]

the chance it will suddenly and without warning, fail is basically zero

BPF

Excellent points but cannot agree with the above statement! I had an engine failure in an almost new Seneca Five! The engine went after takeoff at grosse weight in the climb out at 200 feet.
Very bad vibration and yaw but as the engine was still producing a small amount of power and I instinctively knew pulling it would mean a certain descent I kept the thing going one hand ready on the prop lever!
I struggled to 800 feet agl by which time the vibrations were so bad I had no further choice but to feather and shut down the unit,
A circuit at 800 feet and successful landing.
One of the PAX was a keen movie maker and filmed the whole takeoff engine power clearly visible!
Continental declared it must be over boost on takeoff as three rocker shafts had sheared clean off!
The film proved otherwise! The engine was removed for examination and an admittance from continental that all the rocker shafts had been mistakenly over torqued at manufacture! A complete new unit arrived on warranty within 2 weeks.
While I take your point on mismanagement engines do fail unilaterally especially pistons and that shows in stats comparing pistons to turbines which are far more reliable.

Pace

[astir 8]

There's another S which works for glider pilots. If the farmer has been spreading "natural" fertiliser on the field, its probably at least got a firm surface and is fairly smooth!

Gliders can be washed but the retrieve crew will take the p***:ok:

[Pittsextra]

The instant the engine stops the insurance company just bought the airplane. The only criteria for success in a forced landing is no passenger injuries. What the airplane looks like when it comes to a stop is utterly irrelevant, see point 2 above.


Thats probably the most important thing said on the subject... and keeping that at the centre of everything you do will be the thing that saves your life one day.

[taxistaxing]

On the night navigation part of my NR I asked my instructor what we would do if the engine quit and he replied "aim for a motorway and land in the direction of the traffic".

Not sure I agree with that advice. If it's lit (which by definition it must be) surely you're going to be hitting streetlamps, quite apart from the risk of hitting/being hit by a car or truck.

I should have thought the best bet would be maintaining a controlled descent and then using the landing light at low level to either land in a field or, if over woodland, bellyflop into the treetops at just above stall speed.

For the circuits knowing where the open ground is just after the runway end, and therefore where to aim if it all goes quiet is my strategy. I'm also being disciplined to keep a tight circuit so I can be sure of reaching the runway from a glide.

I will not be doing ANY night flying in an SEP if I can avoid it, once the NR is completed. Way too stressful despite the still air and great views!

[dont overfil]

Pass Your Message.

Forced landing at night I was taught turn into wind, slow down gradually putting down full flap and trim all the way back. Aim for a dark bit and keep wings level.

It works on most of the common Cessnas and Pipers by giving the best balance between rate of descent and low forward speed.

D.O.

[BabyBear]

At my initial medial the AME responded to my questions about night flying by stopping what he was doing and stating; 'If you intend flying a single engine aircraft at night I may have to consider you mentally unfit to hold a PPL'!

BB

[sevenstrokeroll]

while england may not have that many GA or other airports, the idea of night flying here has encouraged altering a straight line course a little bit to more closely keep lighted airports within gliding range from cruise altitude.

so zig zag a tiny bit and overfly airports and have a better chance of having somewhere pleaseant to land.

any area, except airports, at night that is illuminated is likely well populated, like HOUSES where innocents are...

landing on a ''motorway'' or freeway as we might say is a good idea if you are over mountainous terrain...for example flying from san francisco to reno...huge mountains...but alter your course and follow interstate freeway 80 and you have a chance...and much easier to be found after a crash than in wilderness areas.

no, nightflying emergency landings are tough...throw in mountains or oceans or lakes and its tougher...so alter your course and you increase your chances of an option.

[cats_five]

<snip>
If size really matters, some counties have some very small, stone walled fields (Yorkshire, Scotland etc.) Whereas Linolnshire and that flat Southern area has some very large 60+ acre flat fields.

Rather a gross generalisation. There are a lot of large flat fields in some parts of Scotland and Yorkshire, and plenty of places (Cotswolds, Chilterns for example) in England where finding a decent field is almost impossible. The only way to be sure there will be large fields is to plan the flight that way, with the help of OS maps and Google Earth.

[Pilotage]

There's another S which works for glider pilots. If the farmer has been spreading "natural" fertiliser on the field, its probably at least got a firm surface and is fairly smooth!

Gliders can be washed but the retrieve crew will take the p***:ok:

Smooth it certainly is.

My first (and I still hope last) experience of landing in such a field was that "muck" has incredibly low friction and I kept going right across the field until my aircraft (thankfully a pusher) stopped in a 4ft high pile of the stuff at the far end.

I flew out of the field, but the rest of the day was spent washing the aircraft!

P

[Madbob]

I was given the same advice as in post #31 above when flying night SEP. Now I am older (I got my PPL in 1978) I know better and avoid flying at night although the experience is unforgettable.

My thinking is that if flying at night now in a SEP I'd want to wear a parachute......too many dark empty fields have ditches and dry stone walls for my liking!

MB

[Pace]

while england may not have that many GA or other airports, the idea of night flying here has encouraged altering a straight line course a little bit to more closely keep lighted airports within gliding range from cruise altitude.

Sevenstrokeroll

The rate that our beloved airfields are turned into housing estates (Bye Bye Bristol Filton ) And the fact that the majority of other airports are closed in the dark hours in the UK means you would be hard pushed to jump from airport to airport.
Even our Dads Army of Airforce bases are closed for large portions of time and not open at night!

Unless of course you fancy force landing at Heathrow :ok:

There maybe limited areas in the USA where that would be possible

Pace

[sevenstrokeroll]

we have lots of airports, many with pilot controlled lighting for night use...california has about 500 alone!

following roads (vfr) usually keeps you near cities/towns and many towns have little airports.

then the fields of the great plains are simply great for planes.

[Flyingmac]

Print these pages off and take them with you every time you fly.

Regards.

Reckless LAA type pilot.

Or should that be Wreckless?

[Big Pistons Forever]

BPF

Excellent points but cannot agree with the above statement! I had an engine failure in an almost new Seneca Five! The engine went after takeoff at grosse weight in the climb out at 200 feet.
Very bad vibration and yaw but as the engine was still producing a small amount of power and I instinctively knew pulling it would mean a certain descent I kept the thing going one hand ready on the prop lever!
I struggled to 800 feet agl by which time the vibrations were so bad I had no further choice but to feather and shut down the unit,
A circuit at 800 feet and successful landing.
One of the PAX was a keen movie maker and filmed the whole takeoff engine power clearly visible!
Continental declared it must be over boost on takeoff as three rocker shafts had sheared clean off!
The film proved otherwise! The engine was removed for examination and an admittance from continental that all the rocker shafts had been mistakenly over torqued at manufacture! A complete new unit arrived on warranty within 2 weeks.
While I take your point on mismanagement engines do fail unilaterally especially pistons and that shows in stats comparing pistons to turbines which are far more reliable.

Pace

I suggest you re read my post. I indicated that IMO the chances of a sudden failure (not partial failure) but failure which in this context means no power, in cruise where there is no prior warning and/or the pilot actions/inactions caused the failure is basically zero.

In other words the scenario that all flight schools use as the start of the forced approach exercise which involves a sudden and complete loss of power with no warning is in fact the least likely engine failure scenario according to any review of accident reports.

In your example you did not have an engine failure you had a partial engine failure followed by a shut down by you at the moment of your choice. If you had being flying a single engine aircraft I would assume you would have used the remaining power to reduce your rate of descent and to assist you in manoevering the aircraft towards the most open area running the engine to destruction if necessary.

The bottom line is that the type of failure you had is very rare yet almost all of the training in flight school forced approach training situates that most unlikely event as the reason you will need to carry out the forced approach manoever.

Why are we spending so much time practicing something that almost never happens while devoting so little time to educating new pilots on avoiding the pilot caused engine failures that are responsible for 80 % of the engine stoppages ?

There was a very interesting article in the accident report section of Pilot magazine a few months ago. It involved a pilot flying a UK Pa 28 which suffered a total loss of power. He executed a good forced landing in difficult circumstances which result in no injuries, albeit with extensive damage to the aircraft. He was quoted as saying that he regularly practiced forced approach and credited that practice for the successful outcome of his emergency.

Good news story right ? Well not really as the reason the engine failed was because it was a December day with high humidity with an OAT of + 5 C and he failed to properly anticipate the need for carb heat and then failed to appreciate the signs of developing carb ice and let the ice build to such an extent the engine failed. It would seem to me that instead of spending all his time practicing force landings, if he spent a little of that time learning about the cause and prevention of carb ice there would be one less wrecked Pa 28 in England today........

[Pace]

BPF

In my own situation with the Seneca minus three rocker shafts and the resultant mess in the engine the unit would have very soon have failed completely. At that point in level flight the Seneca is happy on one. It was then more important to feather the prop and shut the unit down.
Whether that classifies as a partial failure I am not sure!

You only have to look at the failure rates between pistons and turbines to realize that complete failure is not quite ZERO ;)

What starts as a partial failure can quickly deteriorate to a full failure.
You make an excellent and valid point that the majority of failures are pilot induced either through fuel mismanagement or engine mismanagement.
I am still amazed how many students are told not to touch the little red lever and how little is taught about correct leaning etc.

With so many bits flying around in a piston engine I am not as confident they are as bullet proof as you are:E

Pace

[deltahotel]

Size, Shape, Surface, Surrounds, Slope.

The bigger the better, longest dimension into wind. Wide is good - bigger choice of final landing direction. Firm grass is best, not ploughed is good. No trees or cables on final approach is good. Slope - really hard to judge!

Night - best advice is stay above min abandon height and have a parachute. Failing that, turn into wind, get the flaps down and hope that when the landing surface finally becomes visible, it's not wall to wall barn!

[Fuji Abound]

Slope - really hard to judge!

No necessarily so, see my earlier comments.

Once you are happy landing on a slope you will be amazed how quickly you stop even if it is not into wind ;).

There are some good thoughts on this thread but quite a few seem to amount to trotting out the same old "stuff" taught at PPL - its OK as far as it goes, but I think as I said earlier there is a bit more too this, and with only a little effort we can all improve our chances of success greatly - then again it might never happen or you might have a handle to pull on. ;)

[Pace]

Fuji

As for twins ;)

With more options come more choices! With more choices the option to make the wrong choice :{

The chute like the other engine in a twin is another option. It is not the answer for all ills!
That saying should be stuck on every flying club wall

Pace

[BabyBear]

BPF

In my own situation with the Seneca minus three rocker shafts and the resultant mess in the engine the unit would have very soon have failed completely. At that point in level flight the Seneca is happy on one. It was then more important to feather the prop and shut the unit down.
Whether that classifies as a partial failure I am not sure!

You only have to look at the failure rates between pistons and turbines to realize that complete failure is not quite ZERO http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

What starts as a partial failure can quickly deteriorate to a full failure.
You make an excellent and valid point that the majority of failures are pilot induced either through fuel mismanagement or engine mismanagement.
I am still amazed how many students are told not to touch the little red lever and how little is taught about correct leaning etc.

With so many bits flying around in a piston engine I am not as confident they are as bullet proof as you arehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Pace

Pace,

I have highlighted the relevant areas. I don't read BPF as saying they don't fail completely, I read him as saying they virtually never instananeously fully fail. In other words, as in your case, there is a warning prior to complete failure, which gives valuable time.

If you reconsider his posts with that in mind you may not view them differently. (Assuming I'm right, of course)

BB

[Pace]

BB

I respect and enjoy BPFs posts immensely as well as his depth of knowledge and fully understand where he is coming from regarding pilot induced failures.
Mechanically induced failures DO happen! Whether they are partial which give you time to get to an airport or at least reduce your descent rate in a forced landing it is again about choices.

Engine goes BANG you have no choices you are going down and will concentrate your full attention to the fact that you will arrive on terra firma in one fashion or another within a few minutes.

Your skills and an element of luck or lack of it will determine on how you arrive.

A partial failure? It could lead to a safe landing on an airport? It could actually put you in a worse situation than a full failure ie it could fully fail at a much lower altitude than you hoped for or in a worse place than you hoped for.

This thing about more options giving you more choices and more choices giving you the choice to choose the wrong option :E

[BabyBear]

Sorry Pace, I think you really are misunderstanding the point being made. I'll let BPF explain further, if he wishes.

A partial failure? It could lead to a safe landing on an airport? It could actually put you in a worse situation than a full failure ie it could fully fail at a much lower altitude than you hoped for or in a worse place than you hoped for.

Pace, not sure what to say about that statement, to me totally illogical. In the scenario you describe it it is the 'lower altitude', or 'worse place' that puts you in the 'worse situation'.

BB

[taxistaxing]

I think the point Pace is making is that a partial failure can be worse, if you think the engine is recovering and take actions accordingly, only for it to then conk out completely.

A case in point was a bad crash at Biggin Hill back in '05 or '06 involving a Tomahawk, where the engine quit after takeoff on runway 21. 21 faces towards fields but the highly experienced instructor turned back towards the field and stalled/crashed with fatal consequences. From memory the accident report said witnesses had heard the engine note pick up, so perhaps a partial recovery of the engine lulled him into a false sense of security, and prompted him to try and get back to the field.

If it had just failed outright, he'd probably have committed to landing in the open fields ahead - and in all likelyhood would have made it. Obviously speculation but seems a likely scenario given the experience of the guy involved.

[Pace]

BB

What is illogical ? Pilot X is at 2000 feet over lush fields and flat land he has a full engine failure! He goes down into those fields!
Same situation but he has a partial failure he now has choices?
He can use that partial power to have a controller descent into lush fields or he heads 20 miles to an airports!
The track takes him across a line of hills and forest where the engine gives up for good !
As I said choices

Pace

[BabyBear]

I read the points made as being regarding whether engines suffer catastrophic SUDDEN mechanical failure without warning, or not. Pace suggesting they do, regularly, and BPF suggesting it almost never happens WITHOUT warning.

I accept you are speculating and agree the scenario dscribed may well have been the case. However, as I see it, Pace is getting confused and arguing an entirely different point than that being made. Indeed his confusion is apparent when BPF makes his statement re sudden and total failure for Pace to say he has had one only to go on and describe a partial. The pros and cons of each is an argument separate to the point being made.

As I see it BPF is not discussing the benefits of a partial failure versus a complete failure, or vis versa, he is in fact arguing that, since, in his opinion, engines do not suffer catastrophic mechanical failure then the training for such an event is somewhat redundant and the time would be better spent training on the numerous other pilot induced failures that do occur on a regular basis.

Indeed in the scenario you give whereby a partial failure is suffered then the cause of such failure could be pilot induced and therefore further training in this area may have prevented it.

BB

[BabyBear]

BB

What is illogical ? Pilot X is at 2000 feet over lush fields and flat land he has a full engine failure! He goes down into those fields!
Same situation but he has a partial failure he now has choices?
He can use that partial power to have a controller descent into lush fields or he heads 20 miles to an airports!
The track takes him across a line of hills and forest where the engine gives up for good !
As I said choices

Pace

Pace, I agree with the scenario you describe, however as I said in my previous post; that is not the point that was being made. It was not whether one was better than the other, it was about the probability of sudden total failure. In other words; if total failure seldom happens then by definition it will be partial and those choices are there regardless.

Now this actually supports BPF's argument that it would be better to reduce training for scenarios that seldom happen (total sudden failure) and concentrate on training for sceanrios that regularly happen.

BB

[Pace]

BB

I know with you if I say black you come in and say white ; )
But what the heck ; ) One last go!
Firstly I am not in the slightest bit confused!
Second I fully understand what BPF is stating and agree witha lot if what he is saying!
Where I differ is he states that full abrupt engine failures are Zero I cannot agree with that statement.
I have a habit of taking discussions off on tangents and while I do agree with him that a lot more needs to be taught to avoid pilot induced failures certainly not at the expense of practicing forced landings.
Yes a sick engine is more likely to complain rather than an instant bang but a complaining engine can quickly deteriorate to a Big Bang.
If BPF is arguing that all engine failures are pilot induced then sorry I disagree.
I myself took to a field 28 years back as a green PPL and I admit pilot induced !
Have I had mechanical failures in between YES!
Another for you was again in a Seneca Five, brand new with another owner. This one was a later model!
It had a habit of running rough then surging on one engine! It would then run as smooth as silk!
This got worse until climbing into cloud out of Weston it stopped on me altogether!
I got it restarted and as smooth as silk again!
The aircraft under warranty went to RGV at Gloucester and they could find nothing wrong on ground runs!
They then sent it up with their own pilot who scared himself silly!
Finally they approached piper and most of the fuel system had to be changed to sort it!
So my point is that all engine problems are NOT pilot induced while I appreciate many are!
Lastly I pointed out that a sudden failure or partial is a double edged sword as in some circumstances you would be better off with the sudden rather than a partial!
The Biggin crash mentioned above is one good example
At least a sudden failure in a single will concentrate the mind rather than confuse it ; )

Take care BB ; )

[mary meagher]

Having a check ride with the man I know is the very best and cleverest pilot/instructor/ATPL training captain in the UK, in my little piper cub, over Banbury, he pulls the throttle back to partial power at 5,000' and says "Now what are you going to do about it!"

Five thousand feet looks useful to me, even with a glide ratio of about 12 to one, or therebouts. So I headed back to the airfield - Sheningtin, aka Edgehill. which happened to be downwind from Banbury. So far so good. Decided that there wasn't enought height to do a circuit, so I landed downwind. It is not a bad idea at all if you have an airfield or nice big farmers field to land in and the wind is not too strong.

Surprised my instructor, who fully endorsed my decision as a good idea.

So being aware of your aircraft's glide ratio, don't entirely discount a downwind landing, it is much much better than trying to do a circuit and screwing up the turn. That's where people spin in.

[Fuji Abound]

Among my engine problems was one in a twin. The aircraft was all but brand new. Half a million pounds of aircraft. It transpired a bolt had come adrift (which wasn't required to be wired at that time), nine times out of ten it would have fallen harmlessly to ground (well at least harmlessly unless someones head or green house just happened to be in the way) but instead it was caught in the belt that drives the pump that cools the engine (diesel are water cooled). So the engine proceeded to cook itself. The trouble is when an engine cooks itself you are never quite certain that is precisely whats happening, nor are you certain of the extent of a risk of a fire.

So I well understand Pace's point. A brand new aircraft is no surety that there will not be a catastrophic failure, nor that the failure will not be complete in little more than a few minutes. Then the options present themselves. Do you carry the failed engine any distance not being quite sure of the extent of the risk of a fire?

These are the potential conundrums that can and do occur. It doesn't matter how new or old the aircraft. I could relate a similar experience in a single. Strangely there is less difference that one might imagine in some respects. On the one hand if the engine fails in a single at least you have no choices, but until and unless it does, its not always easy to access whether it will fail, any more than it is to assume that certain failures in a twin will not result in a catastrophic fire or other emergency which endangers the flight.

I understand the point I think Pace seeks to make.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Where I differ is he states that full abrupt engine failures are Zero I cannot agree with that statement.

If BPF is arguing that all engine failures are pilot induced then sorry I disagree.



Hi Pace:

I edited your previous posts down to the two sentences I want to comment on.

First while obviously the probability of sudden total engine failures with no warning is not zero, I stand by my statement that it happens so rarely IMO no special training or practice for this scenario is warranted, yet this extremely unlikely scenario remains the initiating event for virtually all of the forced approach exercises in training.

Your second statement is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. I said 80% of all engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The other 20% obviously represent engine problems caused by something going wrong with the engine or its accessories. But again almost none of these faults will result in the sudden total loss of power with no warning. Instead there will almost always be a period of abnormal engine gauge indications/engine roughness/partial loss of power/unusual odour/unusual noises etc etc. Recognizing this and doing something about about it will greatly increase the chance of a successful outcome over letting the engine fail and having to do a for real forced approach with no engine power.

So my point is that IMO flight training doesn't do a very good job on tailoring to training to fit what actually happens to real pilots in the real world. Instead it is all about flying the "perfect" forced approach. This ties back to the original question about field selection.

I thing the flight school obsession with field selection starts with a fundamentally flawed premise, that is choosing the "right" field is desirable because it will reduce the possibility of damage to the aircraft, something that is IMO utterly irrelevant. In fact I will go further and say that forced approach is the wrong word for the exercise, forced crash is a better descriptor. The goal of the exercise is to crash in a manner that will have the lowest potential for injuries to those on board. I tell my students to aim for the middle of the landing area and make the aircraft hit the ground at the selected point, preferably at a low but controllable airspeed. If they are too fast and the aircraft is going to fly past the touch down point then I tell them to smash the aircraft onto the ground with forward stick.

Finally as I discussed in a previous thread if the engine loses power or stops after the glide attitude is established the aircraft is trimmed and pointed at the nearest flatish area, I expect a complete "cause" check to be carried out in a flow style of check. During the PFL exercise I will terminate the exercise if that check is not properly carried out and restart the exercise. This is the last chance to fix the pilot induced failures and save yourself from having to risk your, and your passengers life flying a for real forced approach.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Having a check ride with the man I know is the very best and cleverest pilot/instructor/ATPL training captain in the UK, in my little piper cub, over Banbury, he pulls the throttle back to partial power at 5,000' and says "Now what are you going to do about it!"

Five thousand feet looks useful to me, even with a glide ratio of about 12 to one, or therebouts. So I headed back to the airfield - Sheningtin, aka Edgehill. which happened to be downwind from Banbury. So far so good. Decided that there wasn't enought height to do a circuit, so I landed downwind. It is not a bad idea at all if you have an airfield or nice big farmers field to land in and the wind is not too strong.

Surprised my instructor, who fully endorsed my decision as a good idea.

So being aware of your aircraft's glide ratio, don't entirely discount a downwind landing, it is much much better than trying to do a circuit and screwing up the turn. That's where people spin in.

That is exactly the kind of a real world scenario that sharpen pilot decision making skills and makes it such a good exercise.:ok: There should be more of that IMO opinion.

[BabyBear]

I have a habit of taking discussions off on tangents

Never, really? I find that hard to believe.:p

In all seriousness, you do and you often do it so effectively that subsequent posts pick up your tangent and consequently argue your point as you have buried the original point.

Pace, I find it surprising that a man of your experience is disagreeing with the point made by BPF, so far your attempts to prove him wrong are actually supporting his argument.

Anyway to continue on your tangent, you do in fact raise an issue which, although aware of it, I have never actually given much proper consideration. So thanks for that.:ok: The fact is that a failed engine is a failed engine (assuming it cannot be restarted) irrespective of whether pilot induced, or otherwise and that fact alone would dictate the need for a certain amount of training to deal with it.

I do think you have a valid point in that a partial failure could cause a greater workload/more decision making/confusion than a complete failure and consequently result in a worse outcome than would have been the case with a complete failure. However I think it is very subjective and in the absence of stats it could equally be argued that that for every partial failure that has had an outcome worse than had the engine failed completely, there are 3 that the partial failure has given just enough to ensure the outcome was better than a complete failure.

A tangent worth going off on thanks, but I say again, it supports the argument that the current PFL training is somewhat lacking.

BB

[Pace]

Pace, I find it surprising that a man of your experience is disagreeing with the point made by BPF

BB

You are trying to put words into my mouth where have I said that I disagree with BPF on the fact that many engine problems are pilot induced and more needs to be done in training pilots to identify and rectify!
Where I have disagreed is on the split between genuine mechanical failure and pilot induced !
As I read it BPF considers the mechanical failure side of instant failure as almost zero.
I regard instant or partial failure as almost the same as a partial in certain circumstances can be worse than an instant failure!
Again this backs up what BPF is saying as its all about choices and pilots taking the wrong actions.
I sometimes wonder whether an emergency checklist in light singles may help?
As for thread divergence I see nothing wrong in that whatsoever!
Someone has to kickstart dying threads : )

Pace

[mikehallam]

Regardless of the statistics argument pro or contra, engine failure or poor management - raging in the above exchanges: most (all?) 'L'earners do wonder what to do if/when the fan stops.

To me it doesn't matter if who/what or even 'me' might have caused it to stop. It's a nice feeling when flying normally that you have received training on how to cope, thus one less 'what if' to worry about & concentrate on flying the thing !

[And yes, one real forced landing relatively recently when the ab initio training from way back worked a dream].

mike hallam

[Pace]

This is really quite important as its not the case of unlikely abrupt engine failure take to a field partial go for an airport!
Both are threatening situations.
The full!!! decision made your going down make the best of it !
Partial you are faced with choices!
Hopefully a happy return to an airfield and a self slap on the back!
The Biggin partial would have been better as a full with fields in front instead the pilot tried to go back, crashed and died!
As Fuji stated some partials where the pilot continues could result in an engine fire!
As i stated a partial could lead to a full! Trying to make a distant airport COULD lead to a worse location to have a full!
So really this is about pilots identifying the problem whether self induced or not and making the right choices in dealing with it!

Pace

[Pace]

Mike

Was your real deal forced landing self induced? Abrupt or partial leading to full or precautionary landing ?

Pace

[BabyBear]

Ok, moving on to your point:

I regard instant or partial failure as almost the same as a partial in certain circumstances can be worse than an instant failure!

Pace how can two things be the same if one is worse than the other. By definition they must be different and therefore require different skills or thought processes to deal with?

What you say about the different considerations re a partial is good and I thank you for causing me to think it through. That said I remain of the opinion, and it is only opinion, that a partail will more often than not result in a better outcome than had it been total failure.

BB

[mikehallam]

The ignition system of my Rotax 912 80 hp [Flat four cyl. FOUR stroke] Rans S6 mysteriously packed up after running a bit rough.

Radio'd the local a/field who I was on listening watch with. They offered me a glide in but from 2,000 ft. I knew it wasn't near enough. Spotted a large enough field approx. same size (like they say) as my base strip and windmill glided in without bending it onto a rather rough tussocky surface.

Agreed it's not a quick a/c so relatively easy to get her in compared with many types discussed above. [Couldn't find anything wrong & flew out a while later].
It took over a year of step by step investigation of all the usual suspects to get rid of the occasional rough running which we now believe was caused by carbon/soot build up inside from running a bit too rich at partial, therefore cruise, throttle for some years before I bought the 'plane. One cylinder suspiciously had lowish compression.

A new Bing carb. needle and its jet, eventually did the trick. This Spring a couple of EGT probes were installed to ease my mind on mix effects. Running it harder 4,900 - 5,000 rpm as recommended by the Rotax forum 'guru' seems to have helped too & (possibly) burnt off any imagined deposits.
Nowadays all four compressions are excellent and the English Channel crossed x4.

mike hallam.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Just to make it perfectly clear all of my comments regarding the probability of failures reflect the situation for Lycoming/Continental/Franklin engines in certified aircraft, or the engine that is in what I think are the aircraft that the vast majority of the readers of this forum flying.

My comments do not apply to ultralight aircraft, especially those with 2 stroke engines as these types seem to have many more instances of mechanically induced engine failures then traditional certified engines. I have had 4 students of mine go on to fly 2 stroke powered ultralights and every single one has had a total in flight engine failure that was not caused by something they did.

For this reason when asked I do not recommend that my students fly 2 stroke powered aircraft and if they do they make a point of always being in gliding distance of a survivable landing area.

[Pace]

Pace how can two things be the same if one is worse than the other

One maybe worse but then the partial can become worse than the full :E
Take the Biggin crash? The pilot had a partial and could have used that partial to have controlled his descent to a field landing.
he must have considered that the partial power would take him back to an on airport landing a better situation on the face of it than landing in a field.
In that situation what appeared as a better option quickly deteriorated to a worse option with the result that the pilot crashed and was killed.

In both situations you have an engine problem and in the partial unless its fixable as BPF says pilot induced you will not really know the outcome.
With the full failure at least you can put your full focus to the forced landing as one way or another you are going to arrive back on terra firma,

With more options you have more choices with more choices you have the option to make the wrong choice :=

BTW I did add the word ALMOST := To the statement of your above

Pace

[BabyBear]

Pace, I think you and I are just wired differently! It's not that I disagree with your points of view, it's more the tangents that confuse me. Yes I know, I'm easily confused.

Out of curiosity do you fly SEP for pleasure, or do you only fly Citation these days?

BB

[Pace]

BB

Sadly only Citations at present although this year has been busy. Have a Ferry in a Citation 5 next friday to Dallas if you want to come :E

Missing the piston twins and singles so will soon add more options to my decision making by taking time on a Cirrus ;) Another aircraft I took to pieces in the forums:E Fuji and 007Heli who has promised me a flight with him :ok: both converted me to the benefits of the chute in those discussions.

Pace

[ShyTorque]

The original topic was picking fields.

whereas 'brown' fields are probably earth or stubble, so a better bet.

As an ex-mil helicopter pilot, I've had a lot of experience of routine landings in fields. It's really not a good idea to ever pick a brown field. A brown field will have been ploughed and will be much softer than others around it so the likelihood of an aircraft nose-over is increased, especially if you land across the furrows.

I used to instruct on the Bulldog. In that aircraft (and many other low-wingers with a sliding canopy), if the aircraft ends up on its back you will possibly be unable to escape without outside assistance, which may not be forthcoming in time if the aircraft goes on fire. The RAF latterly equipped the Bulldog with a pathetic little belt cutter/escape hammer, but I'm not certain that the hammer would be effective in breaking the canopy. Even then, if you broke the canopy, the aircraft would possibly fall on you!

I wouldn't let any of my students even practice PFLs to ploughed fields, in case the engine didn't pick up for the go-around and we ended up in there for real.

My best friend, another RAF QFI, died in a Bulldog forced landing, btw. The aircraft stayed upright but a very poor choice of field resulted in a very severe impact which he didn't survive.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The original topic was picking fields.



As an ex-mil helicopter pilot, I've had a lot of experience of routine landings in fields. It's really not a good idea to ever pick a brown field. A brown field will have been ploughed and will be much softer than others around it so the likelihood of an aircraft nose-over is increased, especially if you land across the furrows.

I used to instruct on the Bulldog. In that aircraft (and many other low-wingers with a sliding canopy), if the aircraft ends up on its back you will possibly be unable to escape without outside assistance, which may not be forthcoming in time if the aircraft goes on fire. The RAF latterly equipped the Bulldog with a pathetic little belt cutter/escape hammer, but I'm not certain that the hammer would be effective in breaking the canopy. Even then, if you broke the canopy, the aircraft would possibly fall on you!

I wouldn't let any of my students even practice PFLs to ploughed fields, in case the engine didn't pick up for the go-around and we ended up in there for real.

My best friend, another RAF QFI, died in a Bulldog forced landing, btw. The aircraft stayed upright but a very poor choice of field resulted in a very severe impact which he didn't survive.

Of the top of my head I can't think of one accident report I have seen where in an other wise survivable crash and where the aircraft ended up upside down the inability of the occupants to exit the aircraft was a significant factor. I would suggest that that is not a good enough reason to not pick a brown field.

The club where I teach recently had an aircraft destroyed in a crash. The cause was poor pilot decision making on the part of a pilot on a hot, high, max weight takeoff. The one thing the pilot did do right when the aircraft stopped climbing and the ill advised turn back wasn't working was to smash the aircraft into the ground in the middle of a plowed field at 80 + kts rather then let it float down the field in ground effect and hit the thick forest of trees at the end of the field while still in the air. In this case the nose wheel broke off and the firewall dug in to the dirt stopping the aircraft upright after a run if about 100 feet. Everybody walked away.

The problem with advice like "never pick a brown field" is that it encourages "paralysis by analyses" particularly with low time pilots. I have seen many instances with PFL's that started out OK but went pear shaped because by the time the student picked a field the aircraft was already so low they were not in a good position.

Re your friends fatal Bulldog accident, what caused the engine failure ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

One maybe worse but then the partial can become worse than the full :E
Take the Biggin crash? The pilot had a partial and could have used that partial to have controlled his descent to a field landing.
he must have considered that the partial power would take him back to an on airport landing a better situation on the face of it than landing in a field.
In that situation what appeared as a better option quickly deteriorated to a worse option with the result that the pilot crashed and was killed.

In both situations you have an engine problem and in the partial unless its fixable as BPF says pilot induced you will not really know the outcome.
With the full failure at least you can put your full focus to the forced landing as one way or another you are going to arrive back on terra firma,

With more options you have more choices with more choices you have the option to make the wrong choice :=

BTW I did add the word ALMOST := To the statement of your above

Pace

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it is always better to have some power (which is the more probable case) then no power at all. You may elect not to use the power available, For instance in the case of an low level EFATO where the best course of action is to cut the power and land straight ahead, but choice is always better then no choice IMO.

The challenge is how to make the right choices and that I think goes back to my point about how "engine failures" are taught in flight schools misses a priceless opportunity to practice making some of those choices.

How many new PPL's know the minimum power setting required to maintain level flight ? Any power above that and you don't have an engine failure you have an entirely different problem, one that again is virtually never explored in flight training.

The saddest accident I personally know about was a C 172 that crashed after an engine failure in very inhospitable terrain. The airplane was destroyed and everyone badly injured, one with permanent life altering injuries.

It turned out the left tank had no fuel but the right tank had 10 gals, with the fuel selector still in the left position. Simply turning the fuel selector to both would have restored engine power yet that never happened.

I think a major reason was that the his flying instructor told him to get the cause check done as quickly as possible so he could concentrate on flying the PFL manoever. Therefore while training for his PPL, given the PFL exercise he just mindlessly verbally rattled off the cause check items as quickly as possible. After all he knew it wasn't going to make any difference as the engine was going to stay failed.

Therefore when the engine stopped for real, under stress he defaulted to what was presented as the "most important part" of the PFL, flying the manoever so the cause check which would have prevented the crash was never actioned.....

I like to think this scenario could not happen to one of my students because I won't let the PFL manoever continue if a good effective cause check is not carried out. This involves looking and physically touching the appropriate controls while calling out the actions in a measured manner. To keep thing interesting, on some PFL's, after the student has actioned the cause checks I give them the engine back at some partial power setting and ask them "what now".:E

Obviously you still have to have and practice the skills to safely crash the aircraft after an engine failure, but I wonder over the years how many aircraft have wound up wrecked in a field when effective pilot actions could have restored power ?

[ShyTorque]

You go for the brown fields, I prefer to avoid them thanks, personal choice.

My friend's aircraft was so badly disrupted that no definite cause for the engine failure was found. However, the BOI determined that the most likely cause was a fuel starvation caused by a leak at a pipe union to the fuel filter. In his case, all the fields were very small.

[Fuji Abound]

Big Pistons

My friend landed in a brown field in a Pitts - she was a really experienced pilot and the reasons for the engine failure were definitely not pilot induced.

The aircraft very rapidly pitched inverted and she was very lucky to escape thanks entirely to very quick assistance. To be fair the aircraft thank goodness did not catch fire and perhaps had she remained trapped (and she was quite badly injured) she may well have survived until her eventual rescue. Never the less she was very surprised how easily the aircraft pitched over form what was otherwise a well executed and managed forced landing.

Most aircraft will not fair well landing in a ploughed field especially if it is wet, the deceleration will be rapid and the G loads significant.

Still, if it is the only option, it is probably the best option.

[007helicopter]

taking time on a Cirrus Another aircraft I took to pieces in the forums Fuji and 007Heli who has promised me a flight with him both converted me to the benefits of the chute in those discussions.

Pace BTW today I am moving our Cirrus to Biggin Hill for better utility as our grass is so unreliable in the winter, so send me a few December dates that suit you.

Having more or less caught up with this thread a few observations below have reinforced my personal beliefs of if you have a chute - USE IT:

1) Choice of field is very difficult from the air, especially when under pressure, surface is very difficult to judge.

2) Higher landing speed type aircraft are worse with significantly increased inertia.

3) Very Experienced guys die and can be severely injured in off airport landings / crashes. To a degree the outcome is a lottery and sure experience helps hopefully make the best choice and improve chances of a good outcome but it still ends up a lottery.

4) Some argue more choice is good, some argue more choice can be bad, I personally have made my choice before taking off.

5) Partial engine failure is more likely than immediate failure and this situation needs to be calmly managed and diagnosed up to the point of a decision to continue, attempt a landing, or a CAPS pull.

6) Fuel management is vital yet some still die for not being able to do this.

My view has changed in the last months in one area and that is when winds on the ground are believed to be at 30 knots plus then I will consider a traditional forced landing into wind.

[POBJOY]

This thread is only confirming the problem that a low hour PPL has in dealing with a 'real' emergency.
Unlike the military that 'practice' this all the time the civil PPl has to be able to 'do his best' in the circumstances at the time.
His best insurance is BEING AWARE, and that although unlikely it is possible and therefore having a simple game plan 'tucked in his mind' will serve him well.
This has to be based on being at a relatively low altitude, and a possible low annual flying time.
The priority is maintaining control,and focussing on flying the machine down to the best approach. With the luxury of height there is the chance of a quick fuel appraisal before turning it off,but then the 'air restart' situation (probably never ever practiced) for a non aerobatic pilot will take time, and this is when you can start to loose control of the situation.
You have to decide on a system that suits YOU and make it as simple as possible.

[RatherBeFlying]

Gliders can go with: Land in the dirt, you won't get hurt. In one sandy loam field my landing run was two fuselage lengths with the glider sitting on the gear doors and hinge fingers pulled off the pin.

For other aircraft, have a look at the size of wheel relative to size/weight of aircraft.

Designers of fixed gear aircraft can squeeze more knots at cruise with smaller wheels. Itty bitty wheels do not take well to plowed fields. A standing or freshly mowed crop will be a better option.

[Sillert,V.I.]

On a related note, if flying a retractable gear SEP, what criteria would you apply when deciding whether to lower it for an off-airport landing?

[Big Pistons Forever]

On a related note, if flying a retractable gear SEP, what criteria would you apply when deciding whether to lower it for an off-airport landing?


In the event of an engine failure Always leave the gear up and apply full flap when touching down on anything that is not a runway

[Big Pistons Forever]

This thread is only confirming the problem that a low hour PPL has in dealing with a 'real' emergency.
Unlike the military that 'practice' this all the time the civil PPl has to be able to 'do his best' in the circumstances at the time.
His best insurance is BEING AWARE, and that although unlikely it is possible and therefore having a simple game plan 'tucked in his mind' will serve him well.
This has to be based on being at a relatively low altitude, and a possible low annual flying time.
The priority is maintaining control,and focussing on flying the machine down to the best approach. With the luxury of height there is the chance of a quick fuel appraisal before turning it off,but then the 'air restart' situation (probably never ever practiced) for a non aerobatic pilot will take time, and this is when you can start to loose control of the situation.
You have to decide on a system that suits YOU and make it as simple as possible.

While I definitely agree that the priority in any emergency including an engine failure is to fly the aircraft, I don't agree with the premise that a full cause check should not be be done in most circumstances. So for example if the reason the engine failed was because you had the mixture leaned for low cruise, descended and then added a bunch of power causing the engine failure, you are implying it would be better to go ahead and crash rather then perform a 10 second cause check which would instantly restore full power :confused:

My advice, and it is worth everything you paid for it ;), is for low time pilots who don't fly that often to practice the initial actions for the engine fail scenario once on every flight.

So when you are flying along at some random point in the flight say to yourself that the engine has failed and do the following steps.

1) Say to yourself I am pitching the aircraft to best glide attitude and trimming

2) Look around and pick the nearest reasonably flat surface with a clear approach. Try to keep the search time to less then 10 seconds

3) Perform a cause check including physically touching each control to build the automatic muscle memory that will be save your butt when the pressure is on.

The cause check I teach (C 172) is as follows

- Fuel selector both quantity confirmed. ( fuel selector is touched , fuel gauges pointd to)

- Mixture rich ( Mixture knob physically pushed in)

- Carb heat on ( Carb heat actually applied)

- Mags both/left/right/both ( switched touched but not moved actions verbalized)

This entire drill takes bout 30 seconds and will make the vital actions that could save your life, automatic.

Finally a useful exercise is if you are downwind and cleared to land/ No 1, is to close the throttle completely when you are even with the end of the runway. The goal is touch down in the first 1/3 of the runway without ever touching the throttle. This is a fun exercise in its own right but is also a great way to develop gliding flightpath judgement.

[Fly-by-Wife]

BPF,

Thanks, that's very, very good advice in there. And free to boot! :ok:

FBW

[POBJOY]

BPF
Most low time ppl x-country flights in the UK are below cloudbase or under controlled airspace.
The reality of pilots 'practicing' for this situation frequently when they can barely afford to stay current is not going to happen.
The earlier example of a 'practice partial power loss at 5000ft in a cub' seems to be more of an inconvenience rather than an emergency.
In the UK airspace;cloud base and controlled airspace keep vfr flights to the low side of ideal,and so the time question becomes very important.
Possible air starts and complete system evaluation takes time that a LOW HOUR ppl does not have.
Commercial and Military trained Pilots are constantly 'checked' on a regular basis,and also practice as the norm.
To compare this for a low time ppl is unrealistic,he must be taught 'survival' and also route planning taking terrain suitability into account.
What we are talking about here is a non pilot induced failure not something that should be covered by normal safe flying practice.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

While I definitely agree that the priority in any emergency including an engine failure is to fly the aircraft, I don't agree with the premise that a full cause check should not be be done in most circumstances. So for example if the reason the engine failed was because you had the mixture leaned for low cruise, descended and then added a bunch of power causing the engine failure, you are implying it would be better to go ahead and crash rather then perform a 10 second cause check which would instantly restore full power http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

My Mount Doom example - engine lost power, instructor set up glide to a useful piece of water (we were on floats), then performed the cause checks ... and we both simultaneously spotted that the mixture knob was further out than either of us had deliberately put it, problem solved. From beginning to end: maybe ninety seconds. (I think his knee had pulled it out a bit when we hit some turbulence whilst he was turned round talking to my family in the back.)

[Pace]

I would agree with BPF. As BPF stated most engine stops are not instant and the fact that the engine is not running as per normal would mean that most pilots would at first adjust the mixture to see if that improved matters as well as going through the checks BPF identified.

When you talk about a student or low time pilot the last thing they want is a badly running engine.
That itself will fill them with terror and as we know terror means lack of normal brain function!
Ie simple tasks and normal reasoning go out of the window to be replaced by frozen brain syndrome.
Hence it maybe an idea to have a laminated emergency checklist in large bold and clear type which can instruct the frozen pilot in what to do?

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

I was taught BPF's checks from the start. Plus "fuel pump on" if present. While looking for somewhere, I started to do them. Engine reacted to pump on. Changed tanks. Flew home. Twice - Pa28 with one empty tank in US and Jodel 1050 with blocked rear tank finger-filter in Scotland.
PS Keep the engine turning while checking - otherwise you won't notice what is effective.

[Pace]

Plus "fuel pump on"

On some Cessna twins fuel pump on high could actually cause engine failures which was notable in a few crashes in the GoldenEagle.

Fuel tank selectors is another! I know of one Cessna 340 ferried all the way from the USA to India where it was collected by an Indian pilot to move the last 50 miles to its new base, He switched the fuel off by accident and landed in a lake before working out what he had done, the poor aircraft ending up at the bottom of that lake after going all that way to be lost in the last 50 miles.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

What we are talking about here is a non pilot induced failure not something that should be covered by normal safe flying practice.

Since about 80% of engine failures are caused by the pilot, it seems reasonable to see if you can undo what ever you did to cause the the engine to fail. The checks if regularly practiced can be done in 10 secs so if you are above 1000 feet AGL I do not see why they should not be performed after the aircraft is established in the glide attitude and pointed at a landable area. For the EFATO below 1000 feet case I agree you should not be messing with things. However the exact same flow fuel, mixture, mags is also a good shutdown check, so either way it should practiced.

I want to emphasize that my recommended engine failure practice sessions ends at the cause check. I don't think it is necessary to actually fly the PFL, simply practice choosing a landing area and doing the cause check. If you can't manage the 30 seconds this takes on every flight I think you need to reevaluate your flying plans........

[Big Pistons Forever]

On some Cessna twins fuel pump on high could actually cause engine failures which was notable in a few crashes in the GoldenEagle.



There has been a Cessna service bulletin to fix this issue available for the last 20 years. Anybody who has not done the mod is IMO very foolish.

The tip tank twin Cessnas have a stupidly complex fuel system, The 340 I sometimes fly has 5 separate tanks with 3 fuel selectors 5 electrical boost pumps and 9 fuel drains. Plus there are all sorts of operational gotchas. A high level of system knowledge is an absolute must if you are flying these aircraft.

[sevenstrokeroll]

no matter what you fly, where you fly, when you fly...you should be looking for a place to land...just in case.

and if you are on instruments....have a working knowledge of what is nearby, be able to make at least a ''cloud break'' aproach to anyplace within range of a VOR...or enter a holding pattern that you make up on the spot in an area clear of innocents and giving you a chance.

Even in big jetere have been good reasons to just SET DOWN NOW to save everyone on board.

I know one outfit that routinely landed sabreliners on two lane highways.

use your imagination...know the ''glide'' line (see ''stick and rudder)...and know the place below the glide line in the window that you can make.

while flying the line in the DC9 my pals and I would always point out places to land...never needed em...but its fun and keeps your mind sharp.

[mary meagher]

Seven Stroke Roll has excellent advice, always be looking for a field! Instructors probably have good ones spotted in their habitual cruising areas. The Tug pilot before being turned loose to pull up gliders is shown suitable fields near the launchpoint. The unfortunate Australian who pulled the chute and plonked it into a nice big paddock, had to make his decision above 2,000. Wait until you are too low for the chute to deploy and your goose is properly cooked. And above 2,000' it is difficult to see the ditches.

Glider pilots must do field selection as a vital part of training before going X-country. In fact it is recommended that they study fields when driving the car round the countryside. The glider is much much easier to manage when landing in a field; when getting low, you have chosen a suitable area by 2,000', when getting lower you have chosen your field - by 1,500', and are still groveling at 800' on the downwind leg hoping to climb away. Which adds up to a lot of time lingering in the air, assessing the wind direction and strength; discovering problems with the chosen field (horses? flooding? rocks?) that may not have been noticed before....and giving you a chance to choose a better field nearby.

We also train to assess the height above the ground without reference to the altimeter; if the trees are rising up around you and the cows getting bigger, etc.

The glider is also designed to land in a field, even a brown muddy field in November....without damage or injury. They seldom turn over in a field landing. Power aircraft often do. Field landings in power aircraft more often cause injury and damage; the main thing is to arrive in control, at the slowest sensible speed, even landing on a house or in trees you can walk away from an engine failure if the approach has been properly controlled.

I think that if you have the money, a Cirrus would ease your mind. Especially in the US, where if you kill or injure yourself or a passenger, the lawyers will be queueing up. Not many power pilots have cross country gliding in their logbooks, it could make them safer pilots altogether.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I was taught, in my days as a glider pilot, the 'SAW SHOWS' mnemonic.

Size
Animals
Wires

Surface
Height (sufficient to reach the field and execute an approach)
Obstacles (trees, fences, hay bales and the like)
Wind
Slope

One aspect of PFLs which tends not to be emphasized is the likelihood of a forced landing being made from a height less than the standard 2500'.

Transitting a low level route, for example, may only allow time for a straight in approach or, maybe, base and finals.

The gliding technique of flying from field to field may not be looked upon as being necessary in an SEP, but an assessment of the general area towards which you would head is definately required - that should take care of a few of the SAW SHOWS issues without too much additional thought leaving you to concentrate on final field selection and for planning and executing a succesful approach.

FOK :)