Engine quits - what approach speed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine quits - what approach speed
We are taught that the lowest safe approach and landing speed is best so as to minimise impact speed on landing but....
This morning as I was driving along in the country, I noticed a field that was long and flat and was just thinking what a good field for a forced landing it was when I noticed telephone wires across the approach.
So my question is this, imagine you have chosen said field to land but failed to spot the wires untill you are commited, the natural response is going to be to pull up to avoid the wires, but at normal approach speed the chances of stalling are significant (without engine power to maintain speed) with disasterous concequences.
Would it be sensible to fly a faster approach to give the opportunity to climb briefly if needed without the risk of stalling.
For all you pedants out there, I realise that in your perfect worlds I should have spotted the wires from 3000 feet and chosen another field, just thought I would say it and save you the trouble
This morning as I was driving along in the country, I noticed a field that was long and flat and was just thinking what a good field for a forced landing it was when I noticed telephone wires across the approach.
So my question is this, imagine you have chosen said field to land but failed to spot the wires untill you are commited, the natural response is going to be to pull up to avoid the wires, but at normal approach speed the chances of stalling are significant (without engine power to maintain speed) with disasterous concequences.
Would it be sensible to fly a faster approach to give the opportunity to climb briefly if needed without the risk of stalling.
For all you pedants out there, I realise that in your perfect worlds I should have spotted the wires from 3000 feet and chosen another field, just thought I would say it and save you the trouble
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you'd remembered what you were taught you would never find yourself in the position in the first place because you would be aiming for a point one third of the way into the field and therefore be well above them. Far better to run into the far hedge at walking pace than into the near one at stalling speed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was hoping to avoid pedantic and pointless replies but it seems that is not possible, obviously if the wires were beneath the aircraft there would not be a problem but they are right where you want to fly, not somewhere else, not at the end of the field, they are on your approach one third of the way into the field.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorks - there's nothing pedantic or pointless about Mike Cross' reply.
If you're talking about telephone poles strung 1/3 of the way across the field, then yes you should have spotted them a long time ago. (They look just like trees, but without the leaves).
If you try to fly over them at that stage in your approach. You. Will. Die.
If you're talking about telephone poles strung 1/3 of the way across the field, then yes you should have spotted them a long time ago. (They look just like trees, but without the leaves).
If you try to fly over them at that stage in your approach. You. Will. Die.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this thread is not a wind up/troll exercise then it is of huge concern.
No one expects you to see wires from 3,000ft, but you are expected to seem them from your downwind point, at 800ft-1000ft.
What were you actually taught to do?
No one expects you to see wires from 3,000ft, but you are expected to seem them from your downwind point, at 800ft-1000ft.
What were you actually taught to do?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you try to fly over them at that stage in your approach. You. Will. Die.
No one expects you to see wires from 3,000ft, but you are expected to seem them from your downwind point, at 800ft-1000ft.
What were you actually taught to do?
If this thread is not a wind up/troll exercise then it is of huge concern.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have got the approach right you have two options:
1. Fly under the wires and land slightly fast If you were aiming well into the field and they were say 2/3 down this should be no problem, especially if you use a bit of sideslip once you have seen the wires.
2. raising the nose slightly might get you over them, if you are at best glide speed then you do have a bit of margin before the stall and if you were just going to clip the top of the wires you could get over them, then get the nose back down and be ready to round out in a hurry.
Personally I would prefer 1., only resorting to 2. if I had cocked up the approach and the wires were over the near hedge with trees or something obstructing the gap between wires and ground.
1. Fly under the wires and land slightly fast If you were aiming well into the field and they were say 2/3 down this should be no problem, especially if you use a bit of sideslip once you have seen the wires.
2. raising the nose slightly might get you over them, if you are at best glide speed then you do have a bit of margin before the stall and if you were just going to clip the top of the wires you could get over them, then get the nose back down and be ready to round out in a hurry.
Personally I would prefer 1., only resorting to 2. if I had cocked up the approach and the wires were over the near hedge with trees or something obstructing the gap between wires and ground.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorks,
If you have to perform an emergency landing in real life, I imagine that you will be crapping yourself, your blood will be one half adrenaline and everything you think you know will go flying out of your head. So the most important thing is to K.I.S.S.
Fly the plane, keep your airspeed at the proper setting for that stage of approach and remember 2 things:
1) If you land into wind and under control, you will almost certainly survive.
2) The biggest danger to your lifespan is performing manouveres like the one you're suggesting. That is what kills people when they screw up an emergency landing.
Keep up the PFLs and listen to your instructor.
If you have to perform an emergency landing in real life, I imagine that you will be crapping yourself, your blood will be one half adrenaline and everything you think you know will go flying out of your head. So the most important thing is to K.I.S.S.
Fly the plane, keep your airspeed at the proper setting for that stage of approach and remember 2 things:
1) If you land into wind and under control, you will almost certainly survive.
2) The biggest danger to your lifespan is performing manouveres like the one you're suggesting. That is what kills people when they screw up an emergency landing.
Keep up the PFLs and listen to your instructor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you need to ask the question, you will probably not understand the answer.
Foxmouth, thanks for the first reasoned answer. so in scenario 2 a little more speed might help avoid the stall, possibly.
The biggest danger to your lifespan is performing manouveres like the one you\'re suggesting. That is what kills people when they screw up an emergency landing.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for asking this, but if you are only talking about telephone wires, surely you won't have the option of flying under them.
In this neck of the woods they are only about 15' above the deck, and with catenary between the posts, that'll reduce to 10-12'. Take off the height of the hedges/fences of 6' and you'd have to limbo dance through them.
As said earlier, the proper approach looks to aim 1/3 into the field so you should have sufficient height to clear the obstruction and land safely. If not, it was probably the wrong field to start with.
In this neck of the woods they are only about 15' above the deck, and with catenary between the posts, that'll reduce to 10-12'. Take off the height of the hedges/fences of 6' and you'd have to limbo dance through them.
As said earlier, the proper approach looks to aim 1/3 into the field so you should have sufficient height to clear the obstruction and land safely. If not, it was probably the wrong field to start with.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you are committed to land, then land! Doesn't matter if you hit the wires if there's nothing that can be done about it. As someone famous once said, fly it all the way in to the crash.
If indeed the wires are 1/3 into the field, than land under them if possible.
[on a pedantic note, yorks, be careful not to alienate yourself amongst well respected and knowledgeable people on this forum]
If indeed the wires are 1/3 into the field, than land under them if possible.
[on a pedantic note, yorks, be careful not to alienate yourself amongst well respected and knowledgeable people on this forum]
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed a field that was long and flat and was just thinking what a good field for a forced landing it was when I noticed telephone wires across the approach.
Your idea of a faster approach is not IMHO a good one. The handling and control responses will not be what you are used to in the approach phase and the visual cues will all be skewed. You'll also have the problem of getting rid of the excess speed when you are already high as a result of the aiming point being where it is.
It's also not a good idea to work on the premise that the wires are going to be in a particular position. Murphy's law will dictate that they automatically move to the most awkward position for whatever approach profile you have decided on. Trying to outguess Murphy is pointless, he always wins.
On a more general point, the ground round poles or pylons is often significantly different to the rest of the field surface because crops cannot be sown or cut right up to them which makes them easier to spot.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox,
Don't mind them.
There is nothing wrong with asking a question. Better to ask it now, and think about it now, then when your engine quits.
Anyone who thinks that they will do everything perfect in a PFL is a fool. Someone once said to me, that on every flight you make, you will make at least one mistake. The danger does not come from the mistake itself, but in developing an attitude where you no longer recognise the mistakes.
If you can make mistakes on flights where everything goes well, then I'm sure you can make mistakes too when the engine quits and your under extreme pressure!
Sure you should see the wires before you get there. But what about the case where you pick a field, set up for it, then notice some fence running through it, and are forced to change your field? You don't zoom back to 2000ft, and start all over again! You'll do the best you can with the time you have, and that may mean you'll miss seeing the wires until late.
So don't mind anyone who criticise you for asking a question. Knowledge comes from asking a question.
Now to the question.
I would say, that it's not such a good thing carrying in extra speed, just for eventualities. Carry in the amount of speed you were thought.
Then if you are faced with wires in the wrong position when it's too late to change field (or direction across the field), there are only 3 possibilities.
1. Go over them.
2. Go through them.
3. Go under them.
1. is only an option if you have A) sufficient speed & B) sufficient field the far side of the wires.
2. Never really an option.
3. this would be my choice. I would be inclined to force it down, even though this may mean extra damage to the aircraft such as nose wheel collapse. At least your 'crash' will happen from 1 ft above the ground, instead of 30ft. While you probably will hit the wire, it should at least only be the tail that hits it, and not the cabin.
At the end of the day, it's about minimising the risk. Stalling from 30 feet is never going to be a good thing, and neither is hitting the wires while flying....particularly if they hit the cabin.
As for carrying extra speed, just in case you see wires at the last minutes, I would suggest the extra speed it likely to cause you more problems, than the possibility of having missed the wires in your inspection.
dp
Don't mind them.
There is nothing wrong with asking a question. Better to ask it now, and think about it now, then when your engine quits.
Anyone who thinks that they will do everything perfect in a PFL is a fool. Someone once said to me, that on every flight you make, you will make at least one mistake. The danger does not come from the mistake itself, but in developing an attitude where you no longer recognise the mistakes.
If you can make mistakes on flights where everything goes well, then I'm sure you can make mistakes too when the engine quits and your under extreme pressure!
Sure you should see the wires before you get there. But what about the case where you pick a field, set up for it, then notice some fence running through it, and are forced to change your field? You don't zoom back to 2000ft, and start all over again! You'll do the best you can with the time you have, and that may mean you'll miss seeing the wires until late.
So don't mind anyone who criticise you for asking a question. Knowledge comes from asking a question.
Now to the question.
I would say, that it's not such a good thing carrying in extra speed, just for eventualities. Carry in the amount of speed you were thought.
Then if you are faced with wires in the wrong position when it's too late to change field (or direction across the field), there are only 3 possibilities.
1. Go over them.
2. Go through them.
3. Go under them.
1. is only an option if you have A) sufficient speed & B) sufficient field the far side of the wires.
2. Never really an option.
3. this would be my choice. I would be inclined to force it down, even though this may mean extra damage to the aircraft such as nose wheel collapse. At least your 'crash' will happen from 1 ft above the ground, instead of 30ft. While you probably will hit the wire, it should at least only be the tail that hits it, and not the cabin.
At the end of the day, it's about minimising the risk. Stalling from 30 feet is never going to be a good thing, and neither is hitting the wires while flying....particularly if they hit the cabin.
As for carrying extra speed, just in case you see wires at the last minutes, I would suggest the extra speed it likely to cause you more problems, than the possibility of having missed the wires in your inspection.
dp
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dublinpilot, well put.
At what point would you say the approach ended? Is not part of the approach over the field or does it stop at the field boundary?
I was not trying to out guess murphy, or change the way poeple fly, or the way I fly, or suggest that the accepted way is wrong, I just asked a question of people who until today I had a great deal of respect for.
Not sure who you are refering to but I dont give a fig if I am alienated from people who are simply rude and offensive, or those who are supersillious and dismisive simply because I had a question to ask.
If you meant to say the wires were across the field rather than across the approach to the field you should have said so.
I was not trying to out guess murphy, or change the way poeple fly, or the way I fly, or suggest that the accepted way is wrong, I just asked a question of people who until today I had a great deal of respect for.
[on a pedantic note, yorks, be careful not to alienate yourself amongst well respected and knowledgeable people on this forum]
Spicy Meatball
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liverpool UK
Age: 41
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read this, it actually got me thinking, what if you hit the cables?
Perhaps a stupid question I know - but what are the possible outcomes? They could simply snap or come away at their ends, and not get in your way. Or, they could get wrapped around something, maybe the spinner, or more likely the tail? If you fly a 'T' tail aircraft, then this could cause more problems I would imagine........
Just some thoughts
Perhaps a stupid question I know - but what are the possible outcomes? They could simply snap or come away at their ends, and not get in your way. Or, they could get wrapped around something, maybe the spinner, or more likely the tail? If you fly a 'T' tail aircraft, then this could cause more problems I would imagine........
Just some thoughts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mazzy,
Not sure if it is stupid question. I was told to fly straight through wooden pole cables if I wasn't certain I would live trying to avoid them. Basically, I was told they would just snap. Although, to be frank, I'm not sure I buy that. But, if it was a choice of stalling or hitting, hitting would, I'm sure, hurt less.
Not sure if it is stupid question. I was told to fly straight through wooden pole cables if I wasn't certain I would live trying to avoid them. Basically, I was told they would just snap. Although, to be frank, I'm not sure I buy that. But, if it was a choice of stalling or hitting, hitting would, I'm sure, hurt less.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mazzy, I have often wondered about wires too, if you drove through a telephone wire in a car you wouldn't feel anything, but we are told to avoid them like the plague so that suggests they are very dangerous, hence the question about flying over them.
Spicy Meatball
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liverpool UK
Age: 41
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, my immediate thoughts are that a chunk of metal/wood/plastic going through a thin cable in the region of 70Mph would have no problem in destroying it, but that's just a naive guess! Again, it would depend on where the cables came into contact with the aircraft - for example if hitting the undercarriage, this could result in a forward jerk.
Actually - this reminds me of an accident that occurred (think it was in the states) when a light aircraft became entangled in power cables (I think) and it was left hanging up-side-down for some time. I haven't found any web link to this yet.......
Actually - this reminds me of an accident that occurred (think it was in the states) when a light aircraft became entangled in power cables (I think) and it was left hanging up-side-down for some time. I haven't found any web link to this yet.......