Nice Caravan deadstick after engine failure.

[AdamFrisch]

Cessna Caravan Engine Failure - Dead Stick Landing - YouTube

[maxred]

Another nice one Adam. Just slightly off centre line when he taxied in though:eek:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Nicely done.

As a small teaching point for less experienced pilots I think it is worth noting that the pilot aligned the aircraft with the runway with a massive amount of skid just before he touched down. It got the job done but is a manoever that must be performed with care because if the aircraft stalled at that point the results would have been very ugly.

Anyone know what caused the engine to fail ? If it was because he was out of gas then no amount of hero piloting will make up for the stupidity of the pilot.....

[AdamFrisch]

Gearbox disintegrated sending metal through compressor resulting in catastrophic failure, apparently. It's not normal for a free turbine design like the PT-6 to not spin, so something must have seized up majorly.

[Tinstaafl]

I've feathered a PT6 in flight and the blades were still turning slowly. Mind you the gas generator was still running. I've occasionally wondered if the blades would turn without the engine running?

[Big Pistons Forever]

If the engine is not producing power then the prop should not move if it is feathered. However there is nothing to stop movement like you would find in a piston engine or single shaft turbine, therefore if the prop is not perfectly at the feather angle it may rotate slowly.

[Ozgrade3]

Poorly executed forced landing, it could have gone pear shaped with that S turn on final. The low level turn right before touchdown was dangerous.

If that was a check flight it would be a fail.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

He's right. That ruddered final skidding turn was inviting a stall / spin. Even from that height that would have been nasty.

[Contacttower]

True he does appear to fly quite far upwind of the beginning of the runway and then approach at quite a severe angle, prompting the sharp turn onto final. Maybe he felt it best to simply point the aircraft at the most direct route to the centre of the airfield...better to do that then aim at the start and fall short i guess.

Not really fair to criticise though just on the basis of a video, he landed the thing in one piece which is ultimately the best one can aim for...

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Oooh get all of you!

The bottom line is, not one of you was flying that aircraft or can see the instruments in front of you or can feel the aircraft around you.

The guy did whatever he did and the result was an undamaged aircraft and nobody got hurt, what's the problem? lol

[Agaricus bisporus]

Ozgrade3, seconded. Sure, presented with a bloody great prepared runway like that he got away with it by the skin of his teeth with it but with very poor technique.

You've gotta love the bolleaux the bystanders come put with though!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The bottom line is, not one of you was flying that aircraft or can see the instruments in front of you or can feel the aircraft around you.

We can see a grossly over-ruddered skidding turn at low speed, though. Classic stall / spin material. Made me shudder when I saw it. He was lucky, not skillful.

[Pilot DAR]

I think that was an awesome forced landing, of which any Caravan pilot would be proud. I do not share the opinion that excess rudder was used at any point (though I have no facts to back up my opinion). I see a large yaw to align the plane with the runway, about at the instant that the left mainwheel touched - perfect! What's the worst that happens if you get that wrong? The right wing stalls first and drops and now both main wheels are on the ground, as you straighten it out? That's okay! I have used full rudder deflection in the flare of a Caravan during crosswind testing at 25 knots direct crosswind, and the aircraft is very benign - no surprises.

Up to and including the entry into the flare, I see only turns which appear to me to be reasonably coordinated and very appropriate. Bear in mind that in a Caravan, with an upgoing aileron, you also have an upgoing spoiler - which will produce drag. If you're trying to make the best glide, I'd be keeping the turns flat to reduce drag. The Caravan wing is excellently stall resistant, and roll control is excellent up to the stall (and rudder too, if you like that way of keeping wings level approaching a stall). You really have to be trying, to spin a Caravan.

I have glided Caravans many times, they glide and handle beautifully. When you feather the propeller, it windmills very gently (though I had a very serviceable engine). If you intend to glide a Caravan, particularly with the engine still running, it is important that the prop be feathered, as there is a huge reduction in drag over the normal beta range position of the blades with the power at idle and the prop in fine pitch. One of the most scary things I have been required to do is to glide a Caravan back from an engine failure at 50 after takeoff, and slower than the required climb speed - without feathering the prop. The propeller drag in beta (which is where you have left it by pulling the power off) is huge.

I can offer nothing but accolades for this skillful flying demonstration. This pilot deserves an "at a boy" from his peers.....

[what next]

That's just another way of sideslipping, was quite common when I flew gliders some 30 years ago (called slip-turn in english if I'm not mistaken). If you have sufficient speed (he obviously had, and I guess he had an airspeed indicator in front of him to make sure) that's a perfectly safe maneuver.

Enter "Bob Hoover" as search string into YouTube and see, how much abuse an aeroplane can take during a deadstick landing without stalling and spinning :)

[Thud105]

"If you're trying to make the best glide, I'd be keeping the turns flat to reduce drag."

Rubbish. All turns need to be coordinated. A flat, skidding turn would increase drag.

[Talkdownman]

My FIC course instructor taught me that the aim of a forced landing is 'survival'.
They survived....therefore aim achieved. I thought a good job well done. Thanks for that, Adam.

[AdamFrisch]

Thud, except when the wing has spoilers as well as ailerons, which I think the Caravan has. Then a turn will induce more drag than a turn in a spoiler-less plane, but I don't know how that compares to a skidding turn when it comes to drag.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Pilot DAR got it right - the pilot handled the aircraft in a way that suggested he was very familiar (and current). The last few seconds are going to be a frenzy of small, well timed inputs and what may appear to bystanders as 'risky', from the pilot's perspective is very much a situation under control. I think the best point raised by DAR is what is the worst that could happen? I can almost sense the pilot's anticipation and control over his aircraft during the last few seconds before that touchdown. He knew what he was doing, end of.

[Thud105]

I believe any flat turn to be more aerodynamically inefficient, irrespective of the system used for control about the Z-axis.
And I agree with SSD. That final skidding turn just before touchdown certainly looks very poorly handled.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes Thud, turns need to be coordinated, I'm not suggesting totally flat turns at any time, careless wording on my part.

However, given the choice, within the range of a generally coordinated turn, I would err to less aileron than more during gliding turns in a Caravan. The Flight Manual makes no specific statement in this regard.

[Agaricus bisporus]

It was poor technique from the moment we saw it on that clip. He had got himself too high/close at that point. If he'd used a proper High Key that wouldn't have happened. If he'd flown a curving sight-picture from downwind that wouldn't have happened. IMHO he'd have been much safer getting aligned with the RWY first and then losing the height. That way he had options. The way he did it he had none and ended in a scary radical manoeuvre at zero feet and low airspeed to recover the situation. His handling skills were OK, it's his judgement I am questioning.
The caravan descends in sideslip like a brick if you ask it - being high and aligned on finals is the safe way, slip off the height when you need to. But not all that 1930's "crazy flying" stunt stuff. That was pure desperation.

[JW411]

In my spare time, I spent a lot of time flying for parachute clubs. Most of it was on BN Islanders. I became very adept at manouevering at low speeds on finals and also on round-out at not many feet getting round soft spots on the DZ and some of the jumping beans who had not yet landed. I could do most things with an Islander as long as I had 55 knots showing.

I know nothing about the Caravan but it seems to me that his first priority was to find somewhere safe to land and he reckoned he could get back to the airfield (which he did).

He ended up on a heading that was several degrees from the main runway heading. He had already achieved the major prize in that he (and the PJI) were most likely going to survive and then he decided to use the last bit of energy to get round the corner on to the strip.

What we don't know from the video is what he was looking at on short finals. Was there a ditch in front of him or some other obstacle? Only he could tell you that. What i can tell you is that he knew his aeroplane well and he felt that, having made the airfield, he could improve the situation for the survival of the aeroplane.

Parachute flying can be a very intensive business. You get to know your aircraft very, very well and fine judgement is the order of the day.

I can remember having an interview with Britannia (Thomson) many, many years ago. One of the interviewers told me that he was worried about my long haul experience with a 5-man crew and pointed out that they frequently did 4 sector days with a 2-man crew.

I gave him my log book and showed him one of my 38 sector days with a 1-man crew!

He was amazed and I went elsewhere.

[Pilot DAR]

Excellent post JW411.

I did not see what that pilot saw, so he knows things and made decisions based upon information I do not have.

Based upon what I saw, I could guess that he lost the engine, and huge drag occurred right away. For a brief period things looked bad, and he was planning straight in, to a place we cannot see in the video. Then he feathered it, and an amazing whoosh pushed him from behind and below, and the runway suddenly looked "makeable" - and he was right! It's always nice when you don't have to truck out a bent plane, instead fixing the engine at the airport.

I've force landed three times after engine failures, twice from lower than that, and not back to a runway. All three times, I later flew the plane out from the landing site I'd quickly selected. Yes, I know, luck! But I made it work for me, and so did he....

[Fitter2]

What I can see is a situation that ended up with a perfectly servicable aircraft (O.K. it needs an engine change, but the pilot is not responsible for that) after an emergency that would have taxed a number of prople. None of the whingers on here knows what the ASI was reading during the final stages of the approach.

I'd like to hope I could do as well in the same situation.

[DeltaV]

Yeah, well I can't really see any evidence of the skidding turns people are claiming but bottom line, he made a successful landing and one where the aircraft can be used again. What's not to like? Most flyers would be happy with that, I think, except maybe those of the armchair variety.

[Crash one]

I don't know what the naysayers can see that was bad, dangerous, failed. To me that was nothing short of perfect.
It must be bloody marvelous being able to fly so much better & know so much sitting at a keyboard spouting utter bull****e.:ugh::ugh:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I was saying that a flat ruddered turn is dangerous, inviting a stall / spin. However, in view of some posts I've gone back and looked at the vid full screen and frame by frame. I now think the ruddering round might have taken place as the LH main touches the ground, in which case I withdraw my criticism and award the man a gold star instead! :\

[thing]

Jeez, what is it about forums that throws up so much negativity? The guy landed in one piece, job done as far as I'm concerned, couldn't give a toss whether he slipped his sides or lowed his high keys.

It looked fine to me but I'm not an expert. He may have dome something wrong that I'm not aware of but the outcome was he walked away. That's all you can ask for from a forced landing. Maybe he should have killed himself then we could all say 'Told you so.' :rolleyes:

[AdamFrisch]

Here's the pilot explaining what went wrong at the Backcountry Pilot's forum:

Backcountry Pilot • View topic - Caravan Dead Stick (http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11482)

[semmern]

What's wrong with you keyboard experts? As far as I could see, that was a perfectly executed forced landing. What's with you spewing criticizm from your armchairs? Would you really have liked him to have crashed and burnt so you could justify your bile? Because that is all I see coming from you. As pilots, you should be applauding a safe forced landing. In fact, I doubt many of you could have done better. The plane ended up not bent with all occupants alive, on a runway. What can possibly be wrong with that? I just read through this thread, and it took me a couple of minutes. The pilot had less than that to make a dead-stick approach and a safe landing. That's many, many decisions and from what I can see, some very good flying, all in very little time. In fact, some of you bile-spewing people should be ashamed of yourselves. It almost seems like you wished him to die so your (very poorly placed) criticism would be justified.

PPRuNe amazes me at times with all the negativity!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The plane ended up not bent with all occupants alive, on a runway. What can possibly be wrong with that? I just read through this thread, and it took me a couple of minutes. The pilot had less than that to make a dead-stick approach and a safe landing. That's many, many decisions and from what I can see, some very good flying, all in very little time. In fact, some of you bile-spewing people should be ashamed of yourselves. It almost seems like you wished him to die so your (very poorly placed) criticism would be justified.

PPRuNe amazes me at times with all the negativity!

semmern, while agreeing this pilot probably did OK (see my post above), I take issue with your assertion that a safe outcome neccessarily means the pilot did a good job.

I have seen some appallingly pi55 poor flying which has ended in death and disaster, and some appallingly piss poor flying where the pilot got away with it (just!) by luck rather than skill, and the day ended with an aeroplane in one piece on the runway, crew intact, but no credit at all to that crew.

[semmern]

Indeed, what I said certainly doesn't apply to every case. But quite obviously in this one :)

[Flyingmac]

PPRuNe amazes me at times with all the negativity!


Godt sagt. :D:D:D:D:D

[P6 Driver]

Any landing you can walk away from...

I was more disturbed by the pathetic video camera skills!

[abgd]

Any thoughts on the wind? I can't see the trees moving, but the wind over the microphone sounds significant.

I found it difficult to judge his flight lines relative to the runway, but I thought the turns looked natural enough to me. However if this is his 5th successful forced landing it seems that for an allegedly poor pilot, he's very consistently lucky.

[gileraguy]

What are you all talking about? He rolled to a stop right in front of the camera! What more could you ask for?

[Pace]

I would agree with Pilot Dar. The pilot did a good job! Turning the aircraft is irrelevant if the pilot is accurate maintaining speed and AOA but risky with a pilot who is innacurate in their flying, distracted or in a panic situation.
At least it was undamged but if this had been a Cirrus who would have pulled the chute?

Pace

[maxred]

At least it was undamged but if this had been a Cirrus who would have pulled the chute?

Like.........:D

[mushroom69]

"Poorly executed forced landing, it could have gone pear shaped with that S turn on final. The low level turn right before touchdown was dangerous.

If that was a check flight it would be a fail."

While several of you are in this mood, could you please also comment on the landing in the Hudson, I suppose you have brilliant insights into how you could have done that better too.

If one has the airspeed, then a turn is not dangerous at what-ever level. I was once following a slower aircraft down finals and needed to S turn along the finals in order to not have to break off and re-enter. The prat behind me, when told by radio to follow the Seneca, said "he is all over the place, what is he doing!" Maybe S turns are unknown to you, or maybe you were the prat following me that day?

Good technique and he managed to have enough to even bring it in off the runway and not block the field for a while. Everything else is airchair BS and remiond me never to watch a game of footie with this lot.

[mushroom69]

Enig semmern! god jul!

[dont overfil]

If there was only a post for him to put his hat on he could have been called the next Bob Hoover:p

D.O.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If one has the airspeed, then a turn is not dangerous at what-ever level.

Only if it's balanced. An over-ruddered skidding turn can be lethal.

This pilot did one of those to align with the runway. If he had the inside main wheel on the ground at the time, no problem (indeed, very skillfully done). If he was still in the air when he did it, he was lucky to get away with it.

[Pilot DAR]

SSD, I don't entirely agree. Of course, many things done in a plane can be lethal if executed without an adequate margin of safety (which is often speed), but skidding/slipping turns can be safely accomplished, and should be a practiced skill for all pilots - appropriate to the aircraft type.

Speed awareness is of course vital. but with a margin of speed, full deflection uncoordinated turns can be made. There are reasons for doing them in certain flying roles. But, with any unusual maneuver, it is one of the "swiss cheese" holes lining itself up, so the pilot must have an awareness of this, and be compensating with skill and attention to mitigate risk. I think that we have agreed that this Caravan pilot was, and good on him.

I would have considered a skidding turn to align with the runway with even higher risk than was apparently involved here. I would rather be more aligned (even if not perfectly) with a suitable roll out area, than crossing possible ditches or other obstacles the pilot might have been aware of wings level. My experience with the Caravan is that it has more rapid response to aggressive rudder input than aileron input. If I had to roll to coordinate a turn, I might not get it rolled back fast enough to hit wings level. This is worsened if I stall a wing while doing it (displaced ailerons/spoilers and all). Aside from inducing a spin (which would take a few moments to develop anyway) a rudder correction can be very rapidly applied and withdrawn as needed. During cross wind testing of a Grand Caravan, I was touching down in 25 knot crosswind, wings level, with full rudder applied (both directions, per crosswind direction tested) with no difficulty in control whatever.

Yes, there are types not as forgiving, but it is the responsibility of a truly competent pilot to have an idea of the what the plane will safely do. All planes I have flown will safely skid a turn to some degree....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Indeed, DAR. That's why I wrote "can be lethal". I used to do 100% skid turns when running in for a parachute drop; the jumpmaster woud tap me on the appropriate shoulder and I'd stick in a bootfull of rudder with opposite aileron (to prevent any roll). This was so the JM could keep the aimimg point on the ground in view at all times during the run-in (if we'd done conventional banked turns he couldn't do that).

But we had speed, and we had height (in the unlikely event of a sudden wing drop forward stick and rudder to centralise the ball would have been no problem).

[Pilot DAR]

Yes.

About my fourth flight carrying jumpers in a C 185 (with really no jump pilot training whatever) I had the plane slowed back to about 55 MPH (it was STOL kitted). The JM loved it when I flew really slowly on jump run, and I liked to keep them happy.

Well, the three jumpers all climbed out, but did not jump. They went hand over hand up the wingstrut. Followed by the JM. I had four of them trailing the strut, and full rudder, and lots of aileron in to keep it straight with all of that unexpected drag. As I was about to yell out there "what the hell are you doing?". the JM yelled "Yahoo!", and they were gone. Well with all that control applied, as the plane reached the stall, then suddenly the drag was gone, the thing just tumbled, I had no idea which way was up. I was really concerned that I might hit a jumper, but had no idea where they were, and no control anyway. Some kind of spin/spiral dive/split S/immellman recovery worked, and all was fine.

After that, I insisted on briefings before jumpers exited.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Ha! Been there! It didn't tumble but it took some controlling once they'd gone (it was C172 so only 3 of 'em). I just thought "well, if it snap rolls and spins at least that'll get rid of 'em!"

[Pace]

SSD

If the pilot is good and precise. knows the aircraft then there is nothing wrong with that approach.
Where I do agree with you is that many pilots are not that precise and as such maouvres like that should be avoided.
Engine out is just a red herring for while the pilot no longer has on tap energy from the engine he does have potential energy albeit sacrificing altitude to achieve the same or even better as there is no torque effect from the prop.
It all depends on the pilot and this was well executed

Pace