"Real" Engine outs
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLA
The SLA technique involves you imagining an angle between you and the touchdown point. If that angle is increasing, you are going to land long. Conversely, if that angle in decreasing you will undershoot. This requires you to fly an almost complete curving approach to the touchdown point. it may sound like what you do already, largely because you have worked it out for yourself. But in my experience, it is tought very infrequently at club level. From my experience of teaching it, students picked it up very quickly - and once mastered they made sucessful glide approaches nearly every time. The primary skill is judging the changing SLA. It's not as difficult as it first may seem.
I am a glider pilot with over 3000 "deadstick" landings and I have used the shortfield landing technique nearly 100% of the time. The reason being that the experience gained this way will give invaluable help when you're in a pinch on a cross country field selection.
I also did over 6000 landings in Birddogs (L-19's) and the landing technique I use for a deadstick is to do exactly as the military. You never loose sight of the intended touch-down point and use all your facilities to bleed off height whilst not allowing yourself to get below the glide slope, as could happen in a standard circuit. I have been lucky to not have had a real engine failure, but I prefer to have either a windmilling or a stopped propeller because with either situation I adjust my technique in judging the landing approach. I think a windmilling propeller functions as an airbrake (braking v.s. pulling prop) and I will leave the aerodynamicists to figure out which produces more or less drag when compared with a stopped prop. Of course the 50 degr flaps on the Birddog help !
An important thing to remember is that airspeed must be bled-off at the time the wheels touch the ground with the stick in your stomach. I know of a few pilots who did not do this and nosed over causing substantial damage to aircraft and ego! Excess speed can be a big liability in a small and muddy field.
So far (touch wood) I have been successful using this technique.
Yankee Whiskey
I am a glider pilot with over 3000 "deadstick" landings and I have used the shortfield landing technique nearly 100% of the time. The reason being that the experience gained this way will give invaluable help when you're in a pinch on a cross country field selection.
I also did over 6000 landings in Birddogs (L-19's) and the landing technique I use for a deadstick is to do exactly as the military. You never loose sight of the intended touch-down point and use all your facilities to bleed off height whilst not allowing yourself to get below the glide slope, as could happen in a standard circuit. I have been lucky to not have had a real engine failure, but I prefer to have either a windmilling or a stopped propeller because with either situation I adjust my technique in judging the landing approach. I think a windmilling propeller functions as an airbrake (braking v.s. pulling prop) and I will leave the aerodynamicists to figure out which produces more or less drag when compared with a stopped prop. Of course the 50 degr flaps on the Birddog help !
An important thing to remember is that airspeed must be bled-off at the time the wheels touch the ground with the stick in your stomach. I know of a few pilots who did not do this and nosed over causing substantial damage to aircraft and ego! Excess speed can be a big liability in a small and muddy field.
So far (touch wood) I have been successful using this technique.
Yankee Whiskey
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaving the aircraft as a pile of wreckage in a smoking hole while you descend by parachute could hardly be classed as successful.
Besides, the statistics were for light piston singles which don't tend to have ejector seats.
If the military during a given period made two forced landings, one of which was successful, one of which wasn't, one could hold that the military shows a 50% success rate. If during the same period civillian forced landings total one hundred and thirty are successful, one might suggest that with only a 30% success rate, this clearly shows that the military exhibits better training and a much higher success rate. Get the military to do 100 forced landings during the same period and see if the numbers still hold true. You'll find it's not the case, and instead you'll be recording record numbers of ejections or bailouts.
When was the last time the military trained a student to actually land on a country road or in a field?
The success of a forced landing is based on the sucessful landing of an intact aircraft.
In the forced landing I conducted two years ago, described previously, the aircraft was relatively unscathed. The tailwheel assembly collapsed during the rollout, but otherwise it was in good shape. We were able to move it to a farm road eight days later and fly it out after repairs were conducted. I continued using it after it underwent a month of inspections. However, as I exited the burning canyon and made my turn to put it on the hillside, the intactness of the aircraft was the least of my worries. I expected to end up inverted. I had nearly full fuel tanks and expected at least a groundloop if not ending up inverted, and thus expected a wing tank to be ruptured, and a fire. My sole concern was getting stopped and getting clear. Had I ended up inverted and on fire, and had I been clear, I would certainly have considered that a successful forced landing. Intact aircraft, or otherwise.
The glide angle of a stopped engine is steeper than the idling engine. Is anyone really suprised at that fact?
A feathered prop most definitely has less drag than an idling engine, otherwise we wouldn't set "zero thrust" at a power above idle when simulating engine failure on a twin. If you imagine starting at a stopped, feathered prop and moving it gradually to finer pitch, you may reach an angle at which the stopped prop has the same drag as the one attached to an idling engine. Whether you reach this point before or after the pitch reaches the fixed-pitch of the real prop is debatable.
Hartman has a useful summary table for a prop he tested in 1934. With the combination that he chose, the prop attached to an engine throttled to idle was less draggy than the stopped prop at 25, 50 and 75 mph, but was more draggy at 100 mph, presumably because at that speed the prop was effectively driving the engine, while the stopped prop was just sitting there.
A very minor clarification on DanW's reply for those who may be self-teaching this technique: the IAP is initially selected at 1/3 or so into the intended landing area.
HTH
HFD
HTH
HFD
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy,
Every RAF pilot whether fast jet, multi-engine or rotary wing begins his training on light, single engine piston aerolanes. The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own. Probably 10% of the RAF's fleet consists of aircraft in this class.
I think you may be trying to skew the facts to prove a 'civvy is best' point. The fact is that the constant sightline angle technique taught by the RAF is a very effective technique for judging engine off landings in any class of aircraft, and more likely to end with a good result than the technique taught during my PPL. Yes, most military have better currency than most civvy pilots but I think the stats do make a valid point. There have been a sufficient number of successful forced landings by military aircraft over the years for the results to be statistically significant and I think you'll find that when discussing successful forced landings we are not going to be including ejections and bail outs.
Every RAF student trains for off airfield forced landings ad nauseam during Elementary Flying Training. If you fly helicopters you never stop practising engine off landings, and the constant sightline angle technique works as well for a 24 ton Chinook in autorotation as it does for a C152.
the military flies very few light piston singles, and most military pilots have never flown a piston airplane.
I think you may be trying to skew the facts to prove a 'civvy is best' point. The fact is that the constant sightline angle technique taught by the RAF is a very effective technique for judging engine off landings in any class of aircraft, and more likely to end with a good result than the technique taught during my PPL. Yes, most military have better currency than most civvy pilots but I think the stats do make a valid point. There have been a sufficient number of successful forced landings by military aircraft over the years for the results to be statistically significant and I think you'll find that when discussing successful forced landings we are not going to be including ejections and bail outs.
When was the last time the military trained a student to actually land on a country road or in a field?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original topic
I have also done one for real, and it went well.
Referring back to the original anecdote, from the viewpoint of the non-flying pilot, a real forced landing is supposed to look unusually steep, and not just from a drag/speed point of view. In a practice forced landing there's a tendency to try to stretch the glide, because after all, if it doesn't work we can always add power and try again! In the real thing, that's not an option, and a recurring point in all the tips is "stay higher on the glideslope than you would normally", along with "aim half way down the field, not at the threshold". That's because with no engine in a typical draggy light aircraft you can always stuff the nose down for a quick plummet to use up spare energy, but you can't pull back to stretch the glide. In fact when it all goes quiet it may be worth reminding yourself to check the field directly underneath you, rather than gazing into the distance for a better option.
As someone once said, it is better to hit the fence at the far end slowly, than it is to hit the fence at the near end quickly.
In my own case (and to my pleasant surprise) the aircraft stopped about 15 feet away from the wall at the far end of the field!
Referring back to the original anecdote, from the viewpoint of the non-flying pilot, a real forced landing is supposed to look unusually steep, and not just from a drag/speed point of view. In a practice forced landing there's a tendency to try to stretch the glide, because after all, if it doesn't work we can always add power and try again! In the real thing, that's not an option, and a recurring point in all the tips is "stay higher on the glideslope than you would normally", along with "aim half way down the field, not at the threshold". That's because with no engine in a typical draggy light aircraft you can always stuff the nose down for a quick plummet to use up spare energy, but you can't pull back to stretch the glide. In fact when it all goes quiet it may be worth reminding yourself to check the field directly underneath you, rather than gazing into the distance for a better option.
As someone once said, it is better to hit the fence at the far end slowly, than it is to hit the fence at the near end quickly.
In my own case (and to my pleasant surprise) the aircraft stopped about 15 feet away from the wall at the far end of the field!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caveat Emptor: Never done one for real in a powered a/c.
That said, I'm a glider jockey as well as a ppl, and have made a few outlandings; gliding I fly something like the SLA, and probably would continue to do so outside of a controlled airfield / in a real emergency with a powered a/c. And yes, it's the vertical angle you're interested in.
The only thing I really have to add to this topic is neatly illustrated by Dan's chipmunk page:
Q. All other things being equal, in which direction is the field the longest?
A. From corner to corner....
Glider instruction also tells me if the far hedge/wall/whatever is approaching in a hurry, initiate a groundloop - it's generally a far better way of dispersing energy.. but you're very exposed in the front of a glider. It's also advised that over 'unlandable' terrain, you sideslip in onto a wingtip. Not keen on that.
However in any emergency situation, the airframe is dispensable... particularly if doing so is helpful to the survival of soul(s) contained within.
That said, I'm a glider jockey as well as a ppl, and have made a few outlandings; gliding I fly something like the SLA, and probably would continue to do so outside of a controlled airfield / in a real emergency with a powered a/c. And yes, it's the vertical angle you're interested in.
The only thing I really have to add to this topic is neatly illustrated by Dan's chipmunk page:
Q. All other things being equal, in which direction is the field the longest?
A. From corner to corner....
Glider instruction also tells me if the far hedge/wall/whatever is approaching in a hurry, initiate a groundloop - it's generally a far better way of dispersing energy.. but you're very exposed in the front of a glider. It's also advised that over 'unlandable' terrain, you sideslip in onto a wingtip. Not keen on that.
However in any emergency situation, the airframe is dispensable... particularly if doing so is helpful to the survival of soul(s) contained within.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had three total power losses while in the driving seat and another in the passenger seat.
Of those two resulted in restarts (one fuel pump failure recovered by switching on the electric boost pump, the other was an empty tank which I switched over from the passenger seat at 300' agl).
The two that resulted in forced landings both had windmilling props that stopped turning only as speed was reduced on final approach.
The military style high key, low key constant aspect technique is the one I chose with the best chance of success.
You'll never get an ideal choice of field in the right location especially at typical VFR cruising altitudes in the UK, you will probably forget some of the checks and drills, it will probably be 5 to 10 seconds for you to acknowlege the situation before you do anything atall, the rate of descent will be a bit more than you're expecting, but good training will give you a pretty good chance of a successful outcome.
Of those two resulted in restarts (one fuel pump failure recovered by switching on the electric boost pump, the other was an empty tank which I switched over from the passenger seat at 300' agl).
The two that resulted in forced landings both had windmilling props that stopped turning only as speed was reduced on final approach.
The military style high key, low key constant aspect technique is the one I chose with the best chance of success.
You'll never get an ideal choice of field in the right location especially at typical VFR cruising altitudes in the UK, you will probably forget some of the checks and drills, it will probably be 5 to 10 seconds for you to acknowlege the situation before you do anything atall, the rate of descent will be a bit more than you're expecting, but good training will give you a pretty good chance of a successful outcome.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The military style high key, low key constant aspect technique is the one I chose with the best chance of success.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Italy
Age: 37
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shut Down For Real
What do you think about this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5MapqXQdU8
These are some italian pilots shutting down the engine for real just for the fun of making the video. As you can see they shut down the engine with an high AoA near the stall in order to stop the propeller and then pitching it down restarting the engine...
RM86
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5MapqXQdU8
These are some italian pilots shutting down the engine for real just for the fun of making the video. As you can see they shut down the engine with an high AoA near the stall in order to stop the propeller and then pitching it down restarting the engine...
RM86
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 48
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew the little Rollason Turbulent's (VW engine) for many years and loved and learned to respected them.
Learnt valuable lesson about engine handling quite early on when, through a moments brain fart forgot to keep the engine warm in the descent... lost the engine in the circuit after putting the power back on to find... ah, oops it stopped.
Luckily I got it on the runway after cutting everyone up on final (not popular) After landing, got out, pulled it off the runway and sat in the grass contemplating the error of my ways in a fair bit of shock.
Always taught to fly the circuit so that if the engine did quit, I'd have a fighting chance... well at least I did that bit right.
Since then I've been very mindfull of managing the engine in the right way and thankfully the prop's kept turning under its own power!
Learnt valuable lesson about engine handling quite early on when, through a moments brain fart forgot to keep the engine warm in the descent... lost the engine in the circuit after putting the power back on to find... ah, oops it stopped.
Luckily I got it on the runway after cutting everyone up on final (not popular) After landing, got out, pulled it off the runway and sat in the grass contemplating the error of my ways in a fair bit of shock.Always taught to fly the circuit so that if the engine did quit, I'd have a fighting chance... well at least I did that bit right.
Since then I've been very mindfull of managing the engine in the right way and thankfully the prop's kept turning under its own power!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own.
I think you may be trying to skew the facts to prove a 'civvy is best' point.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:::
In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years, many of them in radial engine airplanes. I've had ten or so in single engine piston airplanes, and two years ago two engine failures in turbine singles within a three month period.
Interesting thread here.
I got to thinking about how many engine failures I've had and couldn't even come close to remembering that many.
What kind of maintenance did the airplanes have that you were flying SNS3Guppy?
On the other hand you must have been flying a lot more hours or years than most of us have.
In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years, many of them in radial engine airplanes. I've had ten or so in single engine piston airplanes, and two years ago two engine failures in turbine singles within a three month period.
Interesting thread here.
I got to thinking about how many engine failures I've had and couldn't even come close to remembering that many.
What kind of maintenance did the airplanes have that you were flying SNS3Guppy?
On the other hand you must have been flying a lot more hours or years than most of us have.
Quote:
The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own.
Aaah...no.
I'm pretty certain the US forces use the SLA technique for their Texan 2s forced landing pattern. And the technique goes for any single engine aircraft - not just pistons. Even if you do have an ejector seat. Landing without an engine would usually be considered. I remember talking about forced landings with a USAF F16 pilot and he was talking about using a pattern similar to the one I was familiar with in the RAF. He seemed to be talking about a 'Hi Key' position.
The same is true for most other air forces, and I thought that included your own.
Aaah...no.
I'm pretty certain the US forces use the SLA technique for their Texan 2s forced landing pattern. And the technique goes for any single engine aircraft - not just pistons. Even if you do have an ejector seat. Landing without an engine would usually be considered. I remember talking about forced landings with a USAF F16 pilot and he was talking about using a pattern similar to the one I was familiar with in the RAF. He seemed to be talking about a 'Hi Key' position.
Windmilling props and forced landings
Putting my glider pilot's hat on here......
Motorgliders with feathering props are pretty common. (Sf 25, etc....)
We have prop brakes, as stopping the prop windmilling takes a fair time at low speed (just above the stall and wait!) Once stopped, we feather the prop and set it horizontal. That's so we don't bang it on the ground if we get the landing wrong, and saves it sticking up spoiling the view. The difference between windmilling and stopped is nearly as great as between stopped and feathered. Get a ride in one to try it out if you can. It isn't the same as a light aircraft, even the grotty twoseaters will glide at about 25 to one, and we have airbrakes or spoilers to make the landing easy. I used to teach in a motor falke, and we normally landed engine stopped. I am now learning to instruct in three axis microlights, and we routinely land engine stopped on the airfield (600m grass). Frankly, it isn't very hard once you get over the idea that you can't go around, and it takes about the same distance as engine turning. It is a steeper approach, so if you feel like trying it choose a nice long field and don't try to land right at the beginning first time. Just learn to sideslip, and flaps down only when absolutely sure of getting in
or not at all, sideslips are more controlable.
Motorgliders with feathering props are pretty common. (Sf 25, etc....)
We have prop brakes, as stopping the prop windmilling takes a fair time at low speed (just above the stall and wait!) Once stopped, we feather the prop and set it horizontal. That's so we don't bang it on the ground if we get the landing wrong, and saves it sticking up spoiling the view. The difference between windmilling and stopped is nearly as great as between stopped and feathered. Get a ride in one to try it out if you can. It isn't the same as a light aircraft, even the grotty twoseaters will glide at about 25 to one, and we have airbrakes or spoilers to make the landing easy. I used to teach in a motor falke, and we normally landed engine stopped. I am now learning to instruct in three axis microlights, and we routinely land engine stopped on the airfield (600m grass). Frankly, it isn't very hard once you get over the idea that you can't go around, and it takes about the same distance as engine turning. It is a steeper approach, so if you feel like trying it choose a nice long field and don't try to land right at the beginning first time. Just learn to sideslip, and flaps down only when absolutely sure of getting in
or not at all, sideslips are more controlable.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lestah
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a real one during my training at 900ft QFE on the climb out with Instructor say beside.
PFLs were something that I struggled with, hence the Instructor regularly sprang mock engine failures on me with a number of scenarios.
As a result, both our responses were immediate, well drilled, and we got back in without too much stress. Good teamwork lead to us being pretty chilled about it on finals albeit with a dead engine. Was straight back in the seat the following week.
So, no surprise for me with our successful outcome. And as a PPL today, I still practice them.
My advise would be to know your local area around your home airfield well as you will have far less time to respond than being at 3000ft plus in the cruise over the country side. And when I say well, look at the local features such as power lines that might interfere. I spoke to someone who also had an inflight failure and asked them why they diverted when it seemed apparent that they could return. Low power lines in the vacinity of the approach was the response.
PFLs were something that I struggled with, hence the Instructor regularly sprang mock engine failures on me with a number of scenarios.
As a result, both our responses were immediate, well drilled, and we got back in without too much stress. Good teamwork lead to us being pretty chilled about it on finals albeit with a dead engine. Was straight back in the seat the following week.
So, no surprise for me with our successful outcome. And as a PPL today, I still practice them.
My advise would be to know your local area around your home airfield well as you will have far less time to respond than being at 3000ft plus in the cruise over the country side. And when I say well, look at the local features such as power lines that might interfere. I spoke to someone who also had an inflight failure and asked them why they diverted when it seemed apparent that they could return. Low power lines in the vacinity of the approach was the response.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Italy
Age: 37
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did your engine fail?
I read almost every post and some of you experienced a real engine failure and you all explained how it happened and what the reaction/result was.
To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're engine failed! or the reason it may happen. If there is no pilot's fault in managing the fuel qty, selector, icing and the airplane was always handled by a serious maintenance center, what may go wrong?
For those who lived this event do they know what happened at the engine?
To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're engine failed! or the reason it may happen. If there is no pilot's fault in managing the fuel qty, selector, icing and the airplane was always handled by a serious maintenance center, what may go wrong?
For those who lived this event do they know what happened at the engine?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Useful Lesson
Friend walked away from a (self-induced) forced landing in a PA-28 in the Netherlands. Shortly after getting his PPL he was flying with his fiancee when he decided to demonstrate a simulated engine failure. At about 150' above his selected landing area he re-applied power and........... nothing. (Possible rich mixture cut-out per the investigators.)
Anyway, to cut a long story short, he missed his intended field entirely AND the one beyond it and finally got it down into a third field, crashing through a fence / ditch, sustaining substantial damage to undercarriage (one side collapsed) wing and engine (nose wheel collapsed). Fortunately they both walked away from it.
The moral here?
DON'T SELECT THE BEST EMERGENCY LANDING AREA. SELECT THE BIGGEST..........
She still married him!
Anyway, to cut a long story short, he missed his intended field entirely AND the one beyond it and finally got it down into a third field, crashing through a fence / ditch, sustaining substantial damage to undercarriage (one side collapsed) wing and engine (nose wheel collapsed). Fortunately they both walked away from it.
The moral here?
DON'T SELECT THE BEST EMERGENCY LANDING AREA. SELECT THE BIGGEST..........
She still married him!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Failures resulting in engine shut downs that I can recall .....I probably will think of more later.
P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure
P&W R1830....PBY......Cylinder failure..separation from engine.
P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure.
R1830....PBY.....Catastrophic failure of the supercharger.
PT6-20..Twin Otter......Fuel controller.
PT6-20...Twin Otter.....Fuel Controller.
Those are all I can recall right now that resulted in an engine shut down and landing at nearest airport......one of which was 275 NM away in the high Arctic.
By the way the failures on the P&W1830's were over a period of 10,000 hours flying time on that type of engine.
It is interesting to note I have never had a failure in a single engine airplane that resulted in a forced landing with no power.
Probably because I'm just lucky.
P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure
P&W R1830....PBY......Cylinder failure..separation from engine.
P&W R1830....DC3.....Cylinder failure.
R1830....PBY.....Catastrophic failure of the supercharger.
PT6-20..Twin Otter......Fuel controller.
PT6-20...Twin Otter.....Fuel Controller.
Those are all I can recall right now that resulted in an engine shut down and landing at nearest airport......one of which was 275 NM away in the high Arctic.
By the way the failures on the P&W1830's were over a period of 10,000 hours flying time on that type of engine.
It is interesting to note I have never had a failure in a single engine airplane that resulted in a forced landing with no power.
Probably because I'm just lucky.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because I'm just lucky.
To keep this thread alive I think it may be really interesting to understand WHY you're engine failed!
I'm pretty certain the US forces use the SLA technique for their Texan 2s forced landing pattern.
The High key position is a point in a simulated flameout pattern...not really a forced landing pattern. It's a typical descent, and it's best described not by maintaining a constant angle, but by staying close enough to during the steep descent and approach to make the runway. You can call it whatever you like, SLA, SFO, overhead approach, whatever...it's a descent in the pattern to a chosen landing point by remaining close enough to never get low. You can use a constant angle, you can imagine little window panes to fly through, or whatever technique floats your boat. The result is the same; don't crash.
These patterns aren't taught to execute forced landings, particularly ones off field.
What kind of maintenance did the airplanes have that you were flying SNS3Guppy?
On the other hand you must have been flying a lot more hours or years than most of us have.