Engine Failure Gliding - Final Approach Phase
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine Failure Gliding - Final Approach Phase
I searched and didn't find a thread dealing with this subject specifically. I was reading an article in a magazine about the following accident, and it got me to thinking.
Malibu Mirage
In the fatal accident, the pilot lost engine power at FL 190. At one point he still had well in excess of 10,000 feet when he was only 3 miles from BEH (Benton Harbor, the chosen landing field). He made 3 mistakes that I can see. He didn't manage the basic glide well, he allowed ATC to vector him towards the airfield (instead of doing it himself), and he failed fatality to manage the approach phase towards the runway.
It's this last mistake that troubles me the most. Assuming all is done well in gliding successfully to the vicinity of an airfield (or other suitable landing location), how does one actually setup the final approach phase for a glider landing on the runway (or chosen field, etc)?
It seems to me that being able to set the aircraft down at a specific spot on a field or runway is very critical to surviving an engine out emergency. For complex singles (like the above aircraft), gliding to a landing would be very different from a normal powered approach and landing. It seems you have to setup the approach with the correct speed and altitude, decide when to select gear and flaps, etc. so you can raise or lower your glide slope and airspeed to achieve the best touchdown location, thus putting the wheels down where you need to.
The proper technique sounds very specific to an aircraft type. What are the necessary details, and who teaches the final approach phase part of an engine out landing?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Malibu Mirage
In the fatal accident, the pilot lost engine power at FL 190. At one point he still had well in excess of 10,000 feet when he was only 3 miles from BEH (Benton Harbor, the chosen landing field). He made 3 mistakes that I can see. He didn't manage the basic glide well, he allowed ATC to vector him towards the airfield (instead of doing it himself), and he failed fatality to manage the approach phase towards the runway.
It's this last mistake that troubles me the most. Assuming all is done well in gliding successfully to the vicinity of an airfield (or other suitable landing location), how does one actually setup the final approach phase for a glider landing on the runway (or chosen field, etc)?
It seems to me that being able to set the aircraft down at a specific spot on a field or runway is very critical to surviving an engine out emergency. For complex singles (like the above aircraft), gliding to a landing would be very different from a normal powered approach and landing. It seems you have to setup the approach with the correct speed and altitude, decide when to select gear and flaps, etc. so you can raise or lower your glide slope and airspeed to achieve the best touchdown location, thus putting the wheels down where you need to.
The proper technique sounds very specific to an aircraft type. What are the necessary details, and who teaches the final approach phase part of an engine out landing?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fracture features for the accident crankshaft was consistent with 14 previous failures of the same part number. The engine manufacturer determined the failures were most likely due to the overheating of the steel during the forging process.
I was not taught anything in the UK PPL (other than to find a field and head for it as if it was a runway) but in the FAA PPL they taught me to aim for the start of the downwind leg and to get there at 1500ft AGL. One assumes perhaps 750ft height loss over the downwind leg, and then one loses the remaining 750ft on the (constant bank) turn to landing. This is a perhaps a good technique if the only OK field is close by. Otherwise I would look for a sequence or 2-3 fields one after the other (because managing the heading accurately is far easier than managing the descent rate) in the distance, reasonably upwind if possible, and head for the middle one of the 3.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The technique is easily practiced and is what you do in a PFL.
In a glider you keep the intended landing point in the same place in your vision (neither moving up or down the windscreen) by the use of airbrake and you keep your speed where it should be by the use of the stick.
In a powered aircraft you do the same but usually have flap and power to play with. You may lose either or both so practice sideslips (having first checked the POH to make sure there is no prohibition on their use).
The instructor on my BFR in the US pulled the throttle on returning to the airport in a 172. Too high for the cross runway and not high enough for the intended runway, a typical gliding instructor's trick. When I went for the flap switch he told me I also had an electrical failure. A prolonged sideslip got us right down on to the cross runway and was a total non-event. If your leg gets tired from holding the rudder on just swap over and use the other leg for a while!
In a glider you keep the intended landing point in the same place in your vision (neither moving up or down the windscreen) by the use of airbrake and you keep your speed where it should be by the use of the stick.
In a powered aircraft you do the same but usually have flap and power to play with. You may lose either or both so practice sideslips (having first checked the POH to make sure there is no prohibition on their use).
The instructor on my BFR in the US pulled the throttle on returning to the airport in a 172. Too high for the cross runway and not high enough for the intended runway, a typical gliding instructor's trick. When I went for the flap switch he told me I also had an electrical failure. A prolonged sideslip got us right down on to the cross runway and was a total non-event. If your leg gets tired from holding the rudder on just swap over and use the other leg for a while!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: U.K
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFL's
Mike Cross is exactly right, the method is called the "constant aspect " and you keep your landing point in the same place in the window (be it the side window in a gentle spiral or the windscreen during a straight in.
You dont need to know aircraft glide performance (with the exception of the correct speed/pitch) or have to worry about a height to be at at any given point.
It works a dream and I've taught it at PPL level for 3 yrs now ever since I was converted to it on my instructors course.
LP
You dont need to know aircraft glide performance (with the exception of the correct speed/pitch) or have to worry about a height to be at at any given point.
It works a dream and I've taught it at PPL level for 3 yrs now ever since I was converted to it on my instructors course.
LP
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having deadsticked a malibu and being an assistant rated gliding instructor i can assure you that the principles are the same but the malibu is not the a/c to let the speed bleed away especially when trying to dangle the washing - we dropped the gear at 4000 3 miles from t/down and nearly didnt make it due to the amount we had lower to maintain a descent approach path, Flaps lowered on very short finals with under 1/4 mile to run - luckily got away with it though. :-) 
If you use the constant aspect technique all you need to know is the Low Key height for you particular aircraft. You can find this out by flying a few glide approaches and working out the best point to take the gear. Anyone who flies a single should have an idea at what height they need to be abeam the touchdown point to assure a landing.
Trim for the correct glide speed and maintain the aspect to the touchdownpoint by varying the bank angle in the final turn.
I recall showing the owner of a Piper Lance how to do this. 2500 ft abeam with the gear halfway around the turn worked well.
Trim for the correct glide speed and maintain the aspect to the touchdownpoint by varying the bank angle in the final turn.
I recall showing the owner of a Piper Lance how to do this. 2500 ft abeam with the gear halfway around the turn worked well.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good grief! Why do some people have to get so self righteous over the smallest things?
FYI My "humour" wasn't aimed at the dead pilot, although humour isn't always a bad thing to fall back on in such circumstances (my Grandfather lost many good friends in WW2 and often joked over some of the more unusual ways they departed ... it didn't mean he wasn't sorry to see them die though).
I was simply trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to inject a little humour into a thread which often has the glider pilots tutting and the bar room aces hissing over the complexities of dealing with such dangerous situations! I thought the evil grin would make it obvious it was meant tounge in cheek. But no, I must be a heartless fool who revels in mocking the dead! Ho bloody hum!
SS .... Humourless
FYI My "humour" wasn't aimed at the dead pilot, although humour isn't always a bad thing to fall back on in such circumstances (my Grandfather lost many good friends in WW2 and often joked over some of the more unusual ways they departed ... it didn't mean he wasn't sorry to see them die though).
I was simply trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to inject a little humour into a thread which often has the glider pilots tutting and the bar room aces hissing over the complexities of dealing with such dangerous situations! I thought the evil grin would make it obvious it was meant tounge in cheek. But no, I must be a heartless fool who revels in mocking the dead! Ho bloody hum!
SS .... Humourless
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, the constant aspect technique sounds good, I'll be sure to ask about it.
As much as the rotor community discusses and practices auto rotations (their "get down safely" procedure after an engine failure), I'm a little surprised that the Single Engine FW community doesn't take this more seriously. Am I wrong in thinking that the Rotorheads take engine failures more seriously?
As much as the rotor community discusses and practices auto rotations (their "get down safely" procedure after an engine failure), I'm a little surprised that the Single Engine FW community doesn't take this more seriously. Am I wrong in thinking that the Rotorheads take engine failures more seriously?
Yes, you're wrong. FW pilots take engine failures very seriously. Can't answer for the UK training system but in Oz glide approaches & engine failure after take off are covered prior to first solo, failures at various altitude prior to solo in the training area, tested for the PPL & CPL, IR & instructor ratings. I also included glide approaches at night for my night rating students.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He made 3 mistakes that I can see. He didn't manage the basic glide well, he allowed ATC to vector him towards the airfield (instead of doing it himself), and he failed fatality to manage the approach phase towards the runway.
Certainly, since it happened during a forced landing attempt, the distractions and stress of dealing with an engine failure will not have helped concentration on handling the aircraft but in the end his mistake was to stall and spin inadvertently.
As for your concern about taking ATC vectors I am not sure I understand that. There are fixed wing procedures where ATC can be of enormous help in setting up a good final approach - defined as being lined up with the centreline and 2000 feet above the glidepath at three miles so that you are ideally set up to make your own visually based decisions on when to lower gear, flap, or sideslip in order to plop onto the numbers.
I do not know whether this ATC unit offered such a service (or even had controllers trained in them) - but I don't think we should rule out their potential for help in the right circumstances.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am not familiar BEH airport (or the region it is in), but from a number of hours spent flying in California, I've learned that some GA fields there are quite difficult to pick out against the surrounding ground clutter, even from a mile or two, especially on a hazy day, looking into sun.
Under those circumstances, I wouldn't hesitate to ask ATC for vectors. The hardest thing would be building the mental picture of where I was in relation to the airfield (spatial orientation), as I flew those vectors, under the pressure of dealing with an SEP engine failure.
Also, although I don't have time on a PA46, I recognise that it is a relatively high performance single (compared to an Arrow or similar) and it seemed that the stall/spin might have been a result of the pilot trying to "stretch" the glide. I wonder if the pilot really understood how musch altitude was required for the last mile or two and what the visual picture would look like compared to a normal approach.
An earlier poster, with PA46 experience, explains the high sink rate on final and I wonder if this was a contributing factor to the stall/spin accident?
Whatever the reason, the ppor guy paid a hell of a price for the lesson.
Under those circumstances, I wouldn't hesitate to ask ATC for vectors. The hardest thing would be building the mental picture of where I was in relation to the airfield (spatial orientation), as I flew those vectors, under the pressure of dealing with an SEP engine failure.
Also, although I don't have time on a PA46, I recognise that it is a relatively high performance single (compared to an Arrow or similar) and it seemed that the stall/spin might have been a result of the pilot trying to "stretch" the glide. I wonder if the pilot really understood how musch altitude was required for the last mile or two and what the visual picture would look like compared to a normal approach.
An earlier poster, with PA46 experience, explains the high sink rate on final and I wonder if this was a contributing factor to the stall/spin accident?
Whatever the reason, the ppor guy paid a hell of a price for the lesson.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 7th Aug 2005 at 08:50.
For the PC-XII ...
VMC...use standard PFL procedures… high key and low key...try and fly a normal circuit in terms of shape. Had a failure at 30nm, FL150, engaged autopilot track direct to aerodrome with IAS hold for best L/D airspeed (displayed on AI), joined overhead at 9000 ft, then just conducted circuits from 9000 ft down to effect a landing...using autopilot heading mode and IAS hold...and sitting back and just monitoring and managing the situation.
IMC track for the aerodrome...at 7 NM arc the aerodrome until at 7nm/7000 ft, then turn directly at the aerodrome building to VNE, level off at 700 ft, conduct low level circle to land bleeding speed off flap as required to land...could do a fairly normal circuit shape at 700 ft if joining crosswind at VNE (around 240 kt)
Extensive initial and recurrent training was done for this.
VMC...use standard PFL procedures… high key and low key...try and fly a normal circuit in terms of shape. Had a failure at 30nm, FL150, engaged autopilot track direct to aerodrome with IAS hold for best L/D airspeed (displayed on AI), joined overhead at 9000 ft, then just conducted circuits from 9000 ft down to effect a landing...using autopilot heading mode and IAS hold...and sitting back and just monitoring and managing the situation.
IMC track for the aerodrome...at 7 NM arc the aerodrome until at 7nm/7000 ft, then turn directly at the aerodrome building to VNE, level off at 700 ft, conduct low level circle to land bleeding speed off flap as required to land...could do a fairly normal circuit shape at 700 ft if joining crosswind at VNE (around 240 kt)
Extensive initial and recurrent training was done for this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF and F3G, I generally agree with both you, if you are uncertain as to the direction of the landing field, then by all means contact ATC for a vector.
However, in this report it appears to me that the pilot allowed ATC to manage the gliding decent. In other words it looks like the pilot allowed ATC to give him a set of vectors designed to help the pilot lose the alttiude he needed prior to entry into the pattern. So I don't think this was the best way for the pilot to coordinate with ATC. I think the pilot should have been in charge of managing the gliding decent himself, while using ATC to help confirm his location and to get a directional vector if it was needed.
I don't think that in a situation like this, that ATC has enough information to actually try and manage the gliding decent, by giving the pilot vectors that help the pilot burn off the necessary altitude prior to entry into the pattern and final approach. I personally think that only the pilot should manage the actual decent to the vicinity of the airfield, since he has the most information about his current energy state. In this report, I think the pilot may have given this responsibility over to ATC, because he was too uncertain as to how to manage the gliding decent himself. At least that's my guess.
I personally think this type of pilot/ATC coordination is dangerous, because I don't know how ATC could successfully manage an unpowered decent to a fixed point. If the pilot doesn't know how, then he's in big trouble.
Tinstaafl, yes, yes, I agree with all of that. I should have made myself more clear by saying that I was referring to the concepts and practices of actually getting the aircraft on the ground in one piece, which helo pilots work pretty hard at.
However, in this report it appears to me that the pilot allowed ATC to manage the gliding decent. In other words it looks like the pilot allowed ATC to give him a set of vectors designed to help the pilot lose the alttiude he needed prior to entry into the pattern. So I don't think this was the best way for the pilot to coordinate with ATC. I think the pilot should have been in charge of managing the gliding decent himself, while using ATC to help confirm his location and to get a directional vector if it was needed.
I don't think that in a situation like this, that ATC has enough information to actually try and manage the gliding decent, by giving the pilot vectors that help the pilot burn off the necessary altitude prior to entry into the pattern and final approach. I personally think that only the pilot should manage the actual decent to the vicinity of the airfield, since he has the most information about his current energy state. In this report, I think the pilot may have given this responsibility over to ATC, because he was too uncertain as to how to manage the gliding decent himself. At least that's my guess.
I personally think this type of pilot/ATC coordination is dangerous, because I don't know how ATC could successfully manage an unpowered decent to a fixed point. If the pilot doesn't know how, then he's in big trouble.
Tinstaafl, yes, yes, I agree with all of that. I should have made myself more clear by saying that I was referring to the concepts and practices of actually getting the aircraft on the ground in one piece, which helo pilots work pretty hard at.
Last edited by Flight Safety; 7th Aug 2005 at 15:23.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you'd ever been a glider pilot, you'd know!
If you'd ever flown a parachute however, then you'd know!
Once you're too low it's over for the selected target, so you either have to be dead on, or give yourself some leeway by aiming a little long. By aiming long and controlling with a slip, you're bracketing your target and if it looks like you're going long, you can slip more (or even S turn), if you're coming in a little short, you can ease off the slipping.
That's what the glider pilots are doing, except they're using spoilers instead of slipping. Under a parachute, you have brakes to vary your glidepath.
Good point about the POH, but by the time you're on approach, that's really just accademic.