Forced Landings Without Power

[fireflybob]

Generally I find that when I simulate a FLWOP with pilots the exercise is often poorly flown and executed.

How do you teach FLWOP? Do you have any useful tips?

How can we achieve a better standard with this exercise?

[TheOddOne]

Many qualified pilots seem to have forgotten the basics. I think these are:

AS SOON AS POWER IS LOST

1. Trim for the glide
2. Identify your landing site
3. Plan and start to fly your approach to the site

ONLY WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THIS APPROACH

4. Look for cause of failure
5. If none found and rectified (such as a passenger pulling the mixture etc)
6. Shut down the engine (to avoid an embarrassing possibly very transient burst of power on short final into your site)
7. Brief pax for actions
8. Make a MAYDAY call
9. When assured of landing and all flap deployed (especially with electric flaps) fuel and electrics off, open doors.

Time without number, I've had people try and make a MAYDAY call straight away, whilst a/c is descending at rapidly increasing speed to no place in particular.

With ref. to No 2 above, I once flew with the CFI of a gliding club, in the tug, with a view to hiring it. No problems, except he thought my abilities in No 2 above were cr*p. He said I needed a few hours in their motor glider, poodling around at 500' looking at fields and the reasons for choosing or not choosing particular sites. Generally on PPL courses, all we have time for are the classroom 5 S's and some demonstration of constant aspect once you've found a 'suitable' field. Of course, what looks good at 2,500' is very different at 500'.

Dunno how we achieve a better standard. With the classic SEP (C152/172 or Piper) the incidence of engine failure are very small compared with other reasons for accidents that maybe it's not worth spending a greater proportion of time on the topic.

I do try to spend a whole lesson just cruising around looking at different fields. Twice recently I've had pilots on a club check a) ignore the 4 runways of a disused airfield directly underneath us in favour of a really small field and b) ignore a 3 mile long beach with the tide out and not a soul on it...

TOO

[dawsonj1]

Agreed. Something I find also poorly executed the majority of the time. When I teach this I try to get the student to have some sort of plan of action to attack it with but emphasise the fact that nothing comes at the expense at maintaining best glide speed.

Something that was shown to me when I went through my initial FIC with a chap called Pat Plunkett was if you get an engine failure less than 1000 ft agl treat it as if it were an EFATO. If your approx 2000 ft agl turn downwind immediately and now look for landing site either left or right of you. 3000 ft turn crosswind and 4000 ft upwind and so on. The idea being you can now treat it like a compressed circuit.

Something else I find often is people are often in a hurry to extend flaps very early and often above 1500 agl. I'm not sure where this comes from, unless of course your simulating something like a fire and want to expedite the descent.

Selection of fields is something I always try and have a 10 minute discussion on over a cup of tea. For sure if the real thing happens you may not have time to locate the perfect field but having had some pre thought about it should help. For example, how to look for a field with reasonaable short grass, I.e. Look at the colours, deep green is an indication of high growth, maybe avoid this unless there's nothing else!

This is also a great exercise to bring in Threat and Error Manangement. Threats when training, carb icing potentially, manage this using engine warms. When warming the engine use full power (pitch up and prevent yaw with rudder) so you don't alter your IAS from the glide speed.

I'm sure there's much more but I suppose as long as they make a safe attempt to land away from an airfield then that's the most important thing!

Jim.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 02 cents

How we train students for engine failures does not IMO reflect the reality of how engine failures actually occur in the real world.

Specifically:

1) Looking at the accidents statistics approximately 80 % of all engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The best way to deal with an engine failure is to not cause the engine to fail in the first place. IMO far to little emphasis is placed on this fact in flight training. Instead students are lead to believe that engines are likely to just stop on their own.

2) A complete engine failure in an airplane that has sufficient uncontaminated fuel properly selected, with appropriate precaution taken to guard against carb icing and with the mixture control properly set, represents the least likely to happen actual real world engine failure scenario. Yet this is exactly the scenario that is represented in flight training when the instructor pulls the throttle back and tells the student "the engine just failed"

3) The "cause checks", that is the immediate drills performed after the engine fails are at best given short shrift in flight training. Typically the students mumbles his/her way through a short list so they can get on with flying the forced landing. This inculcates an unfortunate mindset of after the engine fails
it won't start so I will do forced landing. I personally know of two forced landings which wrecked the aircraft, where engine power could have been restored if appropriate immediate action drills had been completed. I make sure that on some of the forced landing exercises if the drills are properly carried out the student gets the engine back as a way to emphasize their importance.

3) For every actual total engine failure there are probably 3 partial engine failures, yet this possibility is almost never mentioned in flight training yet alone actually practiced.

4) When the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane. What it looks like after it comes to a stop is absolutely irrelevant, the only factor that matters is nobody gets hurt. Yet many light schools spend an inordinate amount of time on elaborate exercises to determine the "best" field.
I tell my student Close. Open and Flat are the only things that matter. A 9 Gee deceleration from 60 knots to stop takes 25 feet. You smash the aircraft in control wings level and a level pitch attitude into pretty much any patch of flat ground and everyone lives. You stall/spin trying to maneuver into that perfect field, into wind, parallel to the furrows with the right kind of animals on it etc etc and you die.

[Tinstaafl]

Similarly to BPA, I tell my students 'Big, Open, Flat' for field selection. Bugger this multiple 'S' thing. I also want them to get carby heat on, pump on, tank changed while pitching to the glide attiitude to achieve Vg. Carby heat 1st because it's a fading resource, then fuel stuff. These all need to be done ASAP because it can take time to work and may just prevent a forced landing just after take-off.

Then it's look for a field & fly to a key point. Ideally something like 2500' at the upwind end, or if too low, 1500 abeam the aim point. Better high than low - there are plenty of ways to lose excess altitude. If just after take-off then something just over the nose and a bit left or right, depending on height.

After that it's just like doing a glide approach at your home runway. One of the main things I emphasise is to look for the aim point to move up or down on the windscreen to determine under- or over-shoot (something that was not made clear to me when I learnt to fly. My glide approaches/PFLs back then were pure luck. It wasn't until I did my instructor rating that I 'got' the technique).

[dobbin1]

Landing into wind is important - a 10 knot tailwind versus a 10 knot headwind on a 60kt approach means almost double the kinetic energy. The energy has to go somewhere. If you are lucky and it is a big enough field it will just heat up the brakes, but in the mean small fields around my part if the world it will probably go into the airframe.

Plenty of practice helps. Glide approaches from abeam the numbers or from the overhead are a very useful way to develop judgement of the glide all the way to a landing. Pulling the throttle randomly during later exercises helps the student to be ready and have the drills nailed.

A partial failure (eg loss of power, or rough running) is a bit neglected in the syllabus. Exercise 17 (Precautionary Landings) is very difficult to teach realistically and it is boring if done 5/600 ft higher than the real thing. Any ideas for that one?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Landing into wind is important - a 10 knot tailwind versus a 10 knot headwind on a 60kt approach means almost double the kinetic energy. The energy has to go somewhere. If you are lucky and it is a big enough field it will just heat up the brakes, but in the mean small fields around my part if the world it will probably go into the airframe.

Yes landing into wind is important, but too often it is treated as an absolute in that students are told they "failed" because they took did chose a downwind approach. If the only good place to land is a field downwind of them do we want them programmed to try to circle around so they can land into wind as the only way to do it the "right" way, I think not

If you are lucky and it is a big enough field it will just heat up the brakes, but in the mean small fields around my part if the world it will probably go into the airframe.

You are treating the forced approach as if it were a landing, it is not , it is a crash. The most important part of the forced approach maneuver is to get the airplane to your intended flat area where it is going to hit the ground. In a perfectly executed forced approach this will be nose high and slow when you touchdown, but you do what you have to do . If you are high and fast then you may need to smash the aircraft into the ground with forward stick to avoid floating in ground effect until the airplane hits the obstacle at the end of the field at flying speed and people die.

Plenty of practice helps. Glide approaches from abeam the numbers or from the overhead are a very useful way to develop judgement of the glide all the way to a landing. Pulling the throttle randomly during later exercises helps the student to be ready and have the drills nailed.

Absolutely

A partial failure (eg loss of power, or rough running) is a bit neglected in the syllabus. Exercise 17 (Precautionary Landings) is very difficult to teach realistically and it is boring if done 5/600 ft higher than the real thing. Any ideas for that one?

Some ideas

1) Tell them the oil pressure is dropping and the oil temp is rising and they have 10 minutes to get on the ground


2) Reduce the power to a value that will allow them to maintain around 1.5 VS
in level flight and tell them they have a partial engine failure

You don't even have to fly the whole maneuver, getting the student to come up with a good plan is the most important part of the exercise

[Pull what]

How do you teach FLWOP? Do you have any useful tips?

How can we achieve a better standard with this exercise?

Bob if you look at most of the responses so far, you will see something of the problem. Most of what has been posted so far is what you can find in a textbook and that clearly doesnt work or you wouldnt be asking the question(and its a very valid question)!

Most modern textbooks have been written on tne foundations of WW2 practice with high key and low key thrown in and perhaps the constant aspect approach for those who understand it. Add a dose of folkore to that and hey presto we have the modern commentary flying instructor!

For instance our engine out pilot has done everything, all the drills known to mankind, all the folkore. It perfect, the speeds are text book, its the smoothest full flap landing ever. But during the landing roll our hero goes into a previously unseen hole which brings the aircraft to an abrubt stop and the elderly front seat pax hits his head on the door post and later dies from his injury. Is that a successful forced landing?

On the other hand pilot 2 does no checks, flys a **** pattern with **** speeds but because he knows all fields have hidden surprises and is expecting an impact he briefed his passengers to "brace brace" and ensured the upper torso restraint was painfully tight. He also of course gave a pre flight pax briefing mentioning the brace position and the importance of upper torso restraint belt tightening.
There are two aspects to a FLWOP.

1 Flying the procedure
2 Managing the emergency

Words and phrases are important in instruction.
For instance:

Landing into wind is important

BPF has just dealt with that as I write but thats not a good instructor statement(if there is no wind we cant fly it then?!!). In an ideal world landing into wind is best practice but unless you have pre booked ATC with and anemometer in your chosen field you probably wont have much idea of what tbe wind is locally. There are other occasions when upslope may be preferable.

A partial failure (eg loss of power, or rough running) is a bit neglected in the syllabus. Exercise 17 (Precautionary Landings) is very difficult to teach realistically and it is boring if done 5/600 ft higher than the real thing. Any ideas for that one?

Its very easy to teach.
Combine it with flight at minimum level. Fly to a pre arranged private local grass airfield or if thats not possible fly low level cross country to your base airfield and do it there

[dobbin1]

BPF has just dealt with that as I write but thats not a good instructor statement(if there is no wind we cant fly it then?!!). In an ideal world landing into wind is best practice but unless you have pre booked ATC with and anemometer in your chosen field you probably wont have much idea of what tbe wind is locally. There are other occasions when upslope may be preferable.

So are you saying landing into wind is not important then? If so, then I think you are wrong. Of course it may be better to land downwind into a huge field rather than into wind on a tiny one, and upslope may outweigh the wind on a sloping site. Flexibility is always going to be required and needs to be taught.

However assuming a choice between several small fields on a flat surface, taking twice the kinetic energy into your crash is not a good idea. There are usually plenty of clues to local wind direction and if push comes to shove you will probably be better off landing in roughly the same direction you took off in.

[Whopity]

There appear to be two ways of teaching this in the UK. The RAF way which is fairly consistent between instructors and the non-military way where the instructor frequently expects the student to learn the whole exercise in one go.

Prior to Ex 16 the candidate has learned to glide the aircraft to the ground from either downwind or base leg. I personally like the European method of 2000ft above the field as it is more adaptable.

Start the exercise by revising the glide; then after looking at fields from different heights to assess aspect and determine what can and can't be seen, demonstrate the complete package without involving the student.

The teaching begins with the next chunk, from engine failure to the skill they already have, the glide to land. Until the student can join these two events together there is no point doing anything else. Initially, you can use selected fields so that field selection becomes another skill.

Slowly work the student up to the full procedure, but only after they have demonstrated they can combine the varous skills.

[Pull what]

Dobbin there are many important things on a FLWOP but the most important things are the things that have a direct bearing on the outcome and achieve the object-which is to save life.

[Centaurus]

Interesting angle from writer Pia Bergqvist in US Flying magazine May 2015 in his article Mastering No-Power Approaches.

Here are some extracts from his article: "While challenging, the ability to consistently complete a successful no-power approach is definitely achievable - glider pilots make one every time they fly - while you may never experience a true emergency, the day you do you will thank yourself for practicing dead-stick landings in various conditions - I would rather have a skill that I don't need than need a skill I don't have".

Another extract: "While you should target the best glide speed initially, it may not be optimal once you get closer to the ground. I would not ever use my best glide speed as the approach speed because you have no options if you are short. If I use 15 to 20 mph over my best glide speed in the circle to land, it keeps me closer to the runway because I am diving down and turning in a smaller radius than if I slowed to best glide and tried to do a circle to land based on that. With a strong wind you my not be able to make the runway

Also, seeing that you may end up short, you may be tempted to raise the nose. It makes you feel good for one second and then you start sinking faster. It is an evil start of a cycle that has resulted in many pilots landing short of the runway and even stalling the aircraft with devastating outcomes

With a few extra knots in the bank, you can trade speed for altitude if you get low. And if you need to bleed off speed or altitude, there are many options. You can add flaps, bring the prop forward, or slip and skid the aircraft".. End quote of extracts and certainly food for thought.

[Tee Emm]

Let me take you back to Tiger Moth and Chipmunk days where glide approach and landings were the norm. These were not practice forced landings in the circuit which is what is taught nowadays and which in turn is heavily dependant on the position of other aircraft ahead of you. The circuit was flown at normal speed and circuit width. Height was maintained on base leg until at the desired point the throttle was closed to idle, best glide speed attained and descent started.

There were no specific forced landing drills because the purpose was to practice and become proficient at a simple glide approach before first solo. Forced landing practice with its specific drills was saved for the training area. When proficient at glide approaches to land in the circuit before first solo, these skills were transferred directly to practice forced landings from altitude in the training area

If found to be undershooting during the glide approach in the circuit, sufficient power was immediately applied to hold level flight at approach speed until it was obvious the aircraft had regained the proper glide profile, where the pilot simply closed the throttle once more and resumed the landing approach. If the flaps (if fitted) were already down when the undershoot started to occur, more power was need to maintain level flight but the end actions were as before. Regain the glide profile and close the throttle once on profile.

If an aircraft is in front of you while downwind, the technique is to simply extend downwind normally in order maintain adequate separation and maintain normal level flight. Depending on the position of the aircraft ahead, it may even be necessary to maintain height until a position on final is reached where the throttle can be closed and the glide approach profile resumed.

If the glide approach gets too high for any reason, ensure the throttle is definitely closed and not slightly open and extend flaps if fitted. Consider a side slip to lose excess height but be aware of limitations in this regard re side slipping with flaps down and possible effect of blanketing of the tail surfaces in a high wing type.

The advantage of this whole technique is you are not dependant on who is ahead of you in the circuit especially if that aircraft has made a long downwind. There is no need to cut inside of him since all you do is to delay your own descent be it on base or on final until you can safely resume the glide approach.

It means you can practice a true glide approach on every circuit without upsetting other aircraft in the circuit. ATC do not need to know if you are doing a power-on or power-off approach since speeds and circuit width are unchanged. Remember, this type of circuit (glide approach as the norm) was SOP at all aero clubs before and after WW2. It was only when heavier and faster aircraft were flown where the glide approach was changed to a power-on approach as the normal technique. This was because heavier and faster types usually had unacceptable very steep glide angles with engines at idle. For Tiger Moths and Chipmunks et al, practice power-on approach and landings were made by fully closing the throttle on base earlier than usual. Eventually when a undershoot began to materialise because of early throttle closure, a modicum of power was applied to maintain the desired angle of approach. That occurred usually around 300 feet. Bob's your uncle - a powered approach is performed. What could be simpler? The glide approach techniques described above are equally applicable to almost all light single engine types flying now.

As the Cessna 152 and Cessna 172 POH states under the Normal Procedures Section: "Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any flap setting desired". Just like Tiger Moth and Chippie days.

[Pull what]

As the Cessna 152 and Cessna 172 POH states under the Normal Procedures Section: "Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any flap setting desired". Just like Tiger Moth and Chippie days.

I would be surprised if it said that in the Tiger POH as it didnt have any flaps!

"Normal" doesnt mean that it is the most desirable. The power setting and flap setting should be based on the approach and airfield.

I made a flapless powered approach and landing into Heathrow at 120 knots once in a Cessna 172 but I might think twice about doing the same type of approach into Netherthorpe.

[Centaurus]

I made a flapless powered approach and landing into Heathrow at 120 knots once in a Cessna 172

By my calculation that is some 61 knots in excess of the normal VREF. Certainly it fits the definition of an unstable approach. What were you trying to prove

[Pull what]

I was trying to prove to ATC that I could maintain 120 kts to the threshold as requested.

[Penny Washers]

Do I detect some armchair heroes airing their views? This is what it is like - for real:-

My instructor pulled an EFTO on me on climbout. He said nothing, and resisted my efforts to open the throttle again by hanging on hard to the throttle lever.

I was not sure if this was an exercise (I had never been briefed on an EFTO up till then so I did not know what he was up to) or whether he had taken over control from me without saying the magic words "I have control." After all, if the instructor takes over one of the major controls of the aircraft, how is the pupil to know who is meant to be flying the aircraft?

So I did nothing, and he did nothing while waiting for me to respond. As the flying speed got closer and closer to the stall, I realised that I stilll had charge of the elevator, so I pushed the stick forward to prevent any further loss of speed.

He later criticised me for 'being slow to respond,' but he in turn got some stick from ATC for failing to tell them in advance what he was up to. They probably had their finger on the crash button because the engine had 'failed' while the aircraft was in such a nose up attitude.

Some years later, I had an engine failure for real. The engine put a conrod through the side of the crankcase. The lessons to be learned from that were:

1) The vibration is such that ALL the instruments are useless. Unless you know how high you are above the ground (not just the departure airfield) before the failure, the only way to work out an approach procedure is to judge it by eye.

2) You should have an idea of wind direction, but if you have been doing some exercises you may not be certain which way it is.

Instructors please note - teach forced landings by first covering up all the instruments and then failing the engine. And teach a pupil how to work out which way the wind is blowing.

[keni010]

FLWOP

I was taught to identify the chosen field and to locate and pinpoint a 1000ft area to be in for that field using a circuit to do so with no mention of what to do if flying straight into wind. On my GFT I was straight ahead out of the runway at 2000ft which caught me on the hop a bit, no visible indication of wind direction available so used the runway heading....being at only 2000ft I quickly realised I had no time to do the instructed circuit before finding and being capable of arriving at the 1000ft area for an ideal field straight ahead. Had I been heading with the wind to my side instead of straight at me then the already on crosswind leg followed by a downwind leg to the 1000ft area would probably have worked (requiring 3 turns into the field) but to make 4 turns I judged wouldn't so I just thought "what is my first aim" ... that was to be in that area which I'd pointed out clearly to the examiner, at 1000ft, it didn't matter how I got there as far as I was concerned. I pointed out the 1000ft area to the examiner and after a mock mayday call did a fairly long sweeping, "height losing" turn to port and then another to starboard to arrive exactly at that area at 1000ft. I did this instinctively and it was what I'd have done in a "real" situation. At the end of the day that is where you want to be, who cares how you do it in a way? The correct way depends on a few things of course, wind direction being one, state of field as well (ploughed furrows, trees etc. hopefully identified as soon as the engine failure occurs) I think we make too much of it, all you have to make sure of is that you are at that area at 1000ft and that the 700ft turn into the field is on. You can always safely lose height if you're in the right place remember, side slipping, full flap if necessary. There was never any mention of, whilst in the glide, trying to restart the engine, check fuel pump on, correct tank, carb heat etc. I learned all of this stuff after getting my PPL. Not good eh?.... but then I am going back 40 years!

[Mechta]

When the press report a power pilot making a successful forced landing, they will often state, " The pilot had flown gliders so was trained for this" or words to that effect. Whilst it is true, that in most cases, in a glider you only get one attempt at a landing*, you have airbrakes which are used to fine tune your approach and touch down point.

If you were to use a glider, e.g. ASK13, with the airbrakes held open by the instructor to a position which gives an approximate glide angle and descent rate of the power aircraft, it would be a more realistic scenario for practicing FWLOP. Side slipping, circuit planning and speed would be the primary methods of adjusting the descent rate and touch down point.

There are (at least) a few issues though:

• Turns with airbrakes out are generally discouraged
• The pilot is closer to the ground at touch down so the view is different
• A glider may get away with landing on surfaces which would put a tricycle undercarriage aeroplane on its back

*The exception being at a hill site at which it may be possible to overshoot back into lift and have another go.

[keni010]

Forced Landings

Quote: You are treating the forced approach as if it were a landing, it is not , it is a crash. The most important part of the forced approach maneuver is to get the airplane to your intended flat area where it is going to hit the ground. In a perfectly executed forced approach this will be nose high and slow when you touchdown, but you do what you have to do . If you are high and fast then you may need to smash the aircraft into the ground with forward stick to avoid floating in ground effect until the airplane hits the obstacle at the end of the field at flying speed and people die.


I'd say that people shouldn't treat all forced landings as crashes, in fact they should be seen as the minority in my opinion, they would all be uniquely different for many reasons. I believe students should treat them all as landings and remaining calm, not panicking about an imminent and inevitable crash, ensuring they are careful to choose the best available field to have a "landing" as the outcome, this applies to EF's from a decent altitude where there is time for good planning for a correctly positioned base leg for the chosen field assuming you're over some fields of course. EF's on take off are different and they don't allow for much planning at all of course, just aiming the plane really and using flaps and/or side slipping if height is an issue. To be high and fast can definitely be unavoidable on an engine failure on take off but should be able to be avoided when suffering engine failure at say around 2000 feet or more as good and quick planning would likely and ideally have you being at between 500 and 700ft at the beginning of the final approach to the chosen field with a bit of height to lose which can always be done but much better to have to lose it than to not have it. As for smashing the aircraft into the ground, I would rather do a late and very low almost stall using rudder to pick up a dropped wing if one drops I think if things were that desperate, though I'm not sure about this to be honest - both are better than hitting a large tree or building for sure. The field I was lucky enough to choose, (and I chose it very quickly knowing I was heading into wind), on my GFT was very long and turned out to have medium grass approx. 6" to a foot high max, that would have been a landing, not a crash - I hope. Also agree with a point someone made re. downwind forced landings on a long good field. Should always be borne in mind as an option, not the first, but don't rule it out.