Question for Chuck and others

[Big Pistons Forever]

Thing

I think we are basically on the same page. With respect to gliders my contention that care must be taken with comparison to powered aircraft is meant as a generalization. If Derek Piggott was flying a C 172 and the engine failed I expect we would find the undamaged aircraft neatly parked in front of the local with him inside enjoying a pie and fresh pint

My contention in all of the threads I have posted on the engine failure issue is that, in general, unwarranted attention is given to the engine failure scenario in GA, IMO to the detriment of the things that are actually much more likely to cause an aircraft to be wrecked.

Yes I believe an engine failure is an emergency. However like any other emergency we should reduce its probability by proactive management of the factors that could cause the engine to fail and reduce the severity of the outcome if the engine were to fail by attaining and maintaining good flying skills.

[thing]

we should reduce its probability by proactive management of the factors that could cause the engine to fail and reduce the severity of the outcome if the engine were to fail by attaining and maintaining good flying skill

Well put. That's almost along the lines of the classic 'A superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to stay out of situations that require the use of his superior skills.'

[Piper.Classique]

You've never flown a T21 then...

The language you use is very interesting and serves to illustrate a point. 'Forced' landing in a light aircraft and 'field' landing in a glider. Perhaps this is one of the main differences in mental approach. I wouldn't see a power off landing in a field other than the one you thought you were going to land in as any different to a field landing in a glider in a field other than the one you thought you were going to land in.

I have flown a T21. I have done my silver distance in a Grunau Baby, if it comes to willy waggling (Sorry, deficient in the willy department, can I show you something else?)

Of course there is a difference.......Sorry you can't see it. Big Pistons said what I wanted to there.

In another post you ask would it be different in a Cub, rather than a C172. Of couse it would, but it's different sorts of apples, not apples and bananas.
A forced landing in an aircraft is not the same as a field landing in a glider. It shouldn't be life threatening, but it sure isn't routine.

[7of9]

No second chances | Flight Safety Australia

Backs up some of what's been covered on here.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by 7of9

No second chances | Flight Safety Australia

Backs up some of what's been covered on here.

from the article

‘We stall the aircraft onto the runway,’ explains Graham. It’s another example of energy management—we will run out of lift, and then bring the stick back to pin the tail down. Eventually, we’ll use up all the energy.’ And indeed we do, and I soon realise there’s no energy left to get us back to the hangar.

huh

[9 lives]

As it is a nice thing to reduce to idle power at some point before you land, even a power plane landing is a gliding landing. The availability of engine power should be what is giving you much more choice in where you land, not so much how you land.

I do like the article for its references to actually flying the aircraft.