"Real" Engine outs
Engine outs
I had an instructor who reached out and actually switched the engine off in a 152 at 3000 feet; albeit over a low flying area, and with plenty of warning.
His reasoning was, he wanted me to feel how scary and quiet it was if it ever happened for real.
Very sobering experience.
The same guy had me do a dead stick grass landing beside the runway.
Really puts the pressure on and makes you realise if it happens for real, you'll go down real fast, and you only have one shot...
His reasoning was, he wanted me to feel how scary and quiet it was if it ever happened for real.
Very sobering experience.
The same guy had me do a dead stick grass landing beside the runway.
Really puts the pressure on and makes you realise if it happens for real, you'll go down real fast, and you only have one shot...
In Canada, the advice is to pick a touchdown point one third into the field -- halfway if it's a short one.
Clearing the trees and wires on approach is the first priority.
Certainly once the obstacles are definitively cleared, you can steepen the approach to get a longer landing run, but you'll likely be surprised how short the ground run can be in a plowed field
Clearing the trees and wires on approach is the first priority.
Certainly once the obstacles are definitively cleared, you can steepen the approach to get a longer landing run, but you'll likely be surprised how short the ground run can be in a plowed field
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had an instructor who reached out and actually switched the engine off in a 152 at 3000 feet; albeit over a low flying area, and with plenty of warning.
And a windmilling VP one creates a lot less drag if you pull the pitch full-coarse.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cumbernauld
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the most amazing feeling when there is a sudden silence!! It is rather surreal and then the realization sets in thank God my instructor was so annoying with constant EFATO drill!!!! There is that point when you dont believe its stopped, then you tap the gauges!!! Then you think OMG I have now to put into practice what I have learned!
Done it twice not looking forward to the third one!!!!
Done it twice not looking forward to the third one!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what people are getting confused with here is a windmilling and an idling prop. In a PFL the prop is idling not windmilling and is producing some, albeit negligible thrust. In an actual engine failure, whether the prop stops or windmills, the drag will be significantly higher than the idling prop in the PFL, hence the glide characteristics will be completely different to what has been practised.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never had one yet & not looking forward to it.
There are three scenarios here, a "flight idle" PFL, a "windmilling" fuel/carb ice stoppage & a stopped prop / siezure. I would think the usually taught idle PFL is the least like the real thing, in the first place you are taught to "warm" the engine every 500ft, very useful just when you need a bit of thrust! 2 you are reasonably sure it will go when you need it when you realise the field isn't big enough, 3 you "know!!" the exercise does not involve an actual landing, 4 you knew it was going to happen.
The windmilling prop must produce the most drag, think gyroplanes, how many helicopter pilots have been in autorotation going up? next is the stopped prop/plank, feathered blades may help but I don't have those.
Assured success seems to be more a case of location, location, location.
So, perhaps I should stay in the circuit & practice glide approaches.
Well done everyone who are still able to tell us about theirs.
There are three scenarios here, a "flight idle" PFL, a "windmilling" fuel/carb ice stoppage & a stopped prop / siezure. I would think the usually taught idle PFL is the least like the real thing, in the first place you are taught to "warm" the engine every 500ft, very useful just when you need a bit of thrust! 2 you are reasonably sure it will go when you need it when you realise the field isn't big enough, 3 you "know!!" the exercise does not involve an actual landing, 4 you knew it was going to happen.
The windmilling prop must produce the most drag, think gyroplanes, how many helicopter pilots have been in autorotation going up? next is the stopped prop/plank, feathered blades may help but I don't have those.
Assured success seems to be more a case of location, location, location.
So, perhaps I should stay in the circuit & practice glide approaches.
Well done everyone who are still able to tell us about theirs.
Some years ago we were hanging around at our glider field early in the morning, and heard a whistling over the threshold. Turned around to look, and here came a C152 with a stopped prop. Landed down field a little bit, started back up, taxied back, and departed. I remember saying to my club-mate "well there is something you don't see every day."
The glide angle of a stopped engine is steeper than the idling engine. Is anyone really suprised at that fact? The problem with that is in the execution of the procedure for real. The standard PFL pattern doesn't give much lattitude for correction, so when the it's discovered that the angle is steeper in the real case - it's often too late and the pilot ends up in trouble.
I grew up using the military 'Contant Sight Line Angle' (SLA) technique which gives you a lot more lattitude and if your glide angle is steeper, the technique will allow you to identify that fact quickly and correct it with plenty of room to adjust the pattern to compensate. When I trained as a pilot, I already had about 400 hours gliding. The PFL technique I learned is what I had used sucessfully a thousand times or more in gliders. And I have had cause to use the technique twice for real in powered aricraft - both time with complete success.
When I converted my military instructional qualifications into the civilian rating, I was required to teach the PPl technique. I found I couldn't do it! Judging the glide angle was very difficult and I either over or undershot on every attempt. After some scorn from my instructor, I then demonstrated three glide circuits using the constant SLA landing on the numbers each time. I subsequently had to learn the PPl technique, but I will never be convinced that it is better than the SLA technique.
So why isn't the SLA technique tought in the PPL syllabus? This question was being banded around in the 90's when I was an RAF QFI on piston singles. The CAA safety magazine had a discussion for nearly a year regarding this question and some interesting facts emerged. The Statistics showed that military pilots had a forced landing sucess rate of over 90% whereas the civilan sucess rate was less than 50%. This is part due to the mlitary pilots being in better practice, but a lot of it was considered to be due to the SLA technique. There was a move to change the PPL syllabus to the SLA technique, but there is a lot of inertia in the system and it was considered the technique was too complex to learn and would take too many resources. this is slightly ironic as most pilots who have learned it subsequently confess it isn't difficult.
If your club has an ex military QFI, get him to demonstrate it one day.
I grew up using the military 'Contant Sight Line Angle' (SLA) technique which gives you a lot more lattitude and if your glide angle is steeper, the technique will allow you to identify that fact quickly and correct it with plenty of room to adjust the pattern to compensate. When I trained as a pilot, I already had about 400 hours gliding. The PFL technique I learned is what I had used sucessfully a thousand times or more in gliders. And I have had cause to use the technique twice for real in powered aricraft - both time with complete success.
When I converted my military instructional qualifications into the civilian rating, I was required to teach the PPl technique. I found I couldn't do it! Judging the glide angle was very difficult and I either over or undershot on every attempt. After some scorn from my instructor, I then demonstrated three glide circuits using the constant SLA landing on the numbers each time. I subsequently had to learn the PPl technique, but I will never be convinced that it is better than the SLA technique.
So why isn't the SLA technique tought in the PPL syllabus? This question was being banded around in the 90's when I was an RAF QFI on piston singles. The CAA safety magazine had a discussion for nearly a year regarding this question and some interesting facts emerged. The Statistics showed that military pilots had a forced landing sucess rate of over 90% whereas the civilan sucess rate was less than 50%. This is part due to the mlitary pilots being in better practice, but a lot of it was considered to be due to the SLA technique. There was a move to change the PPL syllabus to the SLA technique, but there is a lot of inertia in the system and it was considered the technique was too complex to learn and would take too many resources. this is slightly ironic as most pilots who have learned it subsequently confess it isn't difficult.
If your club has an ex military QFI, get him to demonstrate it one day.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
um, I might be way off in left field here, but anyone who has ever flown a gyrocopter?
The Statistics showed that military pilots had a forced landing sucess rate of over 90% whereas the civilan sucess rate was less than 50%.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't eject from a Grob Tutor, you know! I doubt that statistic included fast jets.
In fact, as far as I know, no-one's ever bailed out from a Tutor, either, even though all operations are carried out wearing parachutes. I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong, because I quote that statistic to cadets regularly!
There was an incident about three years ago when one shed a prop blade, followed by the engine cowlings and canopy before the pilot managed to shut it down, but they still landed that one in a field. (Hairline cracks in the props were found on a number of other Tutors leading to an AD.)
Tim
In fact, as far as I know, no-one's ever bailed out from a Tutor, either, even though all operations are carried out wearing parachutes. I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong, because I quote that statistic to cadets regularly!
There was an incident about three years ago when one shed a prop blade, followed by the engine cowlings and canopy before the pilot managed to shut it down, but they still landed that one in a field. (Hairline cracks in the props were found on a number of other Tutors leading to an AD.)
Tim
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why isn't the SLA technique tought in the PPL syllabus?
There is no specified forced landing procedure for the PPL or the CPL. The requirements in simple terms are to maintain control, ensure safety and make it to a suitable landing area.
The great thing about the SLA is that the basic methods involved can be taught and learned on the ground using a suitable open space and teaching aid.
Looks funny with students walking round arms outstretched dipping down as the walk! One even tried to be smart and make engine noises until I pointed out that this was an engine out procedure.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I grew up using the military 'Contant Sight Line Angle' (SLA) technique which gives you a lot more lattitude and if your glide angle is steeper, the technique will allow you to identify that fact quickly and correct it with plenty of room to adjust the pattern to compensate
Thanks
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 52
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes thanks for that G-string....As far as I can ascertain its simply the angle between an object and the ground below. Don't know how to convert that angle into a practical engine off landing.
Best,
Sicknote
Best,
Sicknote
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLA
Isn't this essentially the same technique the military uses for flying the circuit? Instead of flying a square circuit with a well-defined base leg, they fly a continuous curve, starting on downwind abeam the numbers, keeping the angle to the touchdown point (the numbers) constant, and use the wideness of the turn as the adjuster?
The success of a forced landing is based on the sucessful landing of an intact aircraft. 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.
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.
The military oval circuit isn't really flown using the SLA because the aim is to roll out at 300' or so. However, the glide circuit is taught using the SLA and the final roll out can be - and often is quite low.
I have attached the page from the Chipmunk Student Study Guide which shows the SLA PFL pattern. be aware that you don't have to reach Hi Key at the specified heights. Once you are experienced in the technique, you can join the pattern at any point.
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.
The military oval circuit isn't really flown using the SLA because the aim is to roll out at 300' or so. However, the glide circuit is taught using the SLA and the final roll out can be - and often is quite low.
I have attached the page from the Chipmunk Student Study Guide which shows the SLA PFL pattern. be aware that you don't have to reach Hi Key at the specified heights. Once you are experienced in the technique, you can join the pattern at any point.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan
Thanks for that. I always endeavour to practice PFLs, but I've never seen this technique explained, although I'd heard of it.
From what I've observed, there are a lot of military pilots on this board - conversely, 'their' way of doing things is often documented here. It seems to me that the millitary have a much better 'hands on' approach/style to various aspects of flying, many which seem to be better than the civilian way of doing things.
It would be interesting if a thread could be started that highlighted these differences, (with explanations, of course), perhaps giving both sides the chance to learn from one another?
Thanks for that. I always endeavour to practice PFLs, but I've never seen this technique explained, although I'd heard of it.
From what I've observed, there are a lot of military pilots on this board - conversely, 'their' way of doing things is often documented here. It seems to me that the millitary have a much better 'hands on' approach/style to various aspects of flying, many which seem to be better than the civilian way of doing things.
It would be interesting if a thread could be started that highlighted these differences, (with explanations, of course), perhaps giving both sides the chance to learn from one another?
Looking at the diagram, I get the suspicion that the curving approach is keeping the aim point off the wingtip until turning final.
Dumb Question -- Is the constant angle in the horizontal or vertical plane? I know in gliders we like to maintain a vertical angle to the aim point.
Don't think I'd make friends practising this approach at an active airfield in North America.
Dumb Question -- Is the constant angle in the horizontal or vertical plane? I know in gliders we like to maintain a vertical angle to the aim point.
Don't think I'd make friends practising this approach at an active airfield in North America.