Engine failure on approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine failure on approach
Hi all,
I've been reading about the Fokker 50 crash in Luxembourg in another forum and part of the discusion was about training in the situation of an engine failure on approach. This got me thinking about the training I've received during my PPL. I can't think of a single occurance when my instuctor/s have mentioned this type of emergency, neither do the flying training books I have. Let say you are approaching the runway in a C-152, 70 knots, 2 stages flap, 400 feet agl, 1700rpm, nicely on the glide slope. If the engine fails at this point is it such a hopeless situation that it's not worth including in the training? Anybody got any thought on this?
Regards
D
I've been reading about the Fokker 50 crash in Luxembourg in another forum and part of the discusion was about training in the situation of an engine failure on approach. This got me thinking about the training I've received during my PPL. I can't think of a single occurance when my instuctor/s have mentioned this type of emergency, neither do the flying training books I have. Let say you are approaching the runway in a C-152, 70 knots, 2 stages flap, 400 feet agl, 1700rpm, nicely on the glide slope. If the engine fails at this point is it such a hopeless situation that it's not worth including in the training? Anybody got any thought on this?
Regards
D
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL you should have been taught glide approaches. If you were within glide range of the airfield then that is one option, if not, a forced landing would be called for, also taught.
There are differences with multi A/C engine failures, resulting in different characteristics of flight (or lack of), sometimes making multi engines failures much more life threatening than single engines A/C.
Regards,
LF
There are differences with multi A/C engine failures, resulting in different characteristics of flight (or lack of), sometimes making multi engines failures much more life threatening than single engines A/C.
Regards,
LF
Last edited by long final; 11th Nov 2002 at 19:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LF,
As you suggest I have been taught both glide approaches and forced landings, just not in direct relation to the final minute of flight. I'm thinking it would make sense to look at the final approach and if there isn't a convinient field make the approach a bit steeper to give a better chance of gliding in. I've never seen that in a manual. I'll leave the exciting twin engine stuff to the more experienced pilots for now.
Regards
D
As you suggest I have been taught both glide approaches and forced landings, just not in direct relation to the final minute of flight. I'm thinking it would make sense to look at the final approach and if there isn't a convinient field make the approach a bit steeper to give a better chance of gliding in. I've never seen that in a manual. I'll leave the exciting twin engine stuff to the more experienced pilots for now.
Regards
D
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are approaches, and approaches.
A PPL in a C152 should probably not be taught to fly visual approaches as if they are 3 degree ILSes. In the US, it is usual for schools to teach steeper approaches, flown closer in to the field, off tighter circuits, than is customary here in the UK. The result of this is that the chances of gliding to a safe landing are somewhat higher in the event of an engine failure than would be the case in the typical UK extended circuit.
[Note I make no distinction whether the extended circuit is for noise abatement, or is down to poor pilot technique - Gravity makes no distinction either!]
A light twin flying an instrument approach is a slightly different kettle of fish, but I would have perhaps a slightly different perspective to that of "Long Final" about the dangers of engine failures in twins.
Self-evidently, if an aircraft loses power whilst on a three degree approach, it will require additional power if it to maintain the correct descent profile, and reach the field. However, in the initial stages of the approach, the aircraft will not normally have full flap down, will have a reasonable margin of speed over blue line, and may well not have its gear down. As a consequence, it will be using a reduced level of power compared to the cruise, and the consequences of an engine failure on the aircraft's immediate controllability will be less. Contrast this with the situation immediately after take-off, where the margine between IAS and blue line will be much less (if not negative occasionally).
The issues associated with the loss of an engine on finals in a light twin are then:
1) The difficulty in identifying which engine has failed (because of the reduced effect that the failure has on the aircraft's controllability)
2) The realisation of the the failure and the associated need to add power will often come at the same time as additional flap is lowered, making he discovery of the failure coincide with the lower and slower parts of the approach.
3) Many light twins are not blessed with a massive excess of available power.
This can make reaching the field very doubtful, unless the pilot quickly cleans the airframe up (including feathering the dead engine, retracting the gear and raising unnecessary flap) and recovers from the condition.
HTH
A PPL in a C152 should probably not be taught to fly visual approaches as if they are 3 degree ILSes. In the US, it is usual for schools to teach steeper approaches, flown closer in to the field, off tighter circuits, than is customary here in the UK. The result of this is that the chances of gliding to a safe landing are somewhat higher in the event of an engine failure than would be the case in the typical UK extended circuit.
[Note I make no distinction whether the extended circuit is for noise abatement, or is down to poor pilot technique - Gravity makes no distinction either!]
A light twin flying an instrument approach is a slightly different kettle of fish, but I would have perhaps a slightly different perspective to that of "Long Final" about the dangers of engine failures in twins.
Self-evidently, if an aircraft loses power whilst on a three degree approach, it will require additional power if it to maintain the correct descent profile, and reach the field. However, in the initial stages of the approach, the aircraft will not normally have full flap down, will have a reasonable margin of speed over blue line, and may well not have its gear down. As a consequence, it will be using a reduced level of power compared to the cruise, and the consequences of an engine failure on the aircraft's immediate controllability will be less. Contrast this with the situation immediately after take-off, where the margine between IAS and blue line will be much less (if not negative occasionally).
The issues associated with the loss of an engine on finals in a light twin are then:
1) The difficulty in identifying which engine has failed (because of the reduced effect that the failure has on the aircraft's controllability)
2) The realisation of the the failure and the associated need to add power will often come at the same time as additional flap is lowered, making he discovery of the failure coincide with the lower and slower parts of the approach.
3) Many light twins are not blessed with a massive excess of available power.
This can make reaching the field very doubtful, unless the pilot quickly cleans the airframe up (including feathering the dead engine, retracting the gear and raising unnecessary flap) and recovers from the condition.
HTH
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2Twodonkeys:
It is not that difficult to determine which engine has failed.
Move both throttles up, watch which way it yaws, use rudder to control yaw.
If you are stabalized on the approach it will not need a great amount of power to finish the landing, unless you have really let the airplane get ahead of you.
Cat Driver:
It is not that difficult to determine which engine has failed.
Move both throttles up, watch which way it yaws, use rudder to control yaw.
If you are stabalized on the approach it will not need a great amount of power to finish the landing, unless you have really let the airplane get ahead of you.
Cat Driver:
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you watch light singles landing at any airport, I bet fewer than one in a hundred make an approach where they could actualy get in if the engine failed on final. Glide approaches are really steep, especially into headwinds. It's completely different to the way we are taught: revs to 1700, half flap, etc. etc. If you're motoring in at all and there's a headwind you won't make it if the engine quits.
QDM
QDM
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck
Well yes you are off course correct when it comes to reciting the textbook.
However real life is usually a bit different, otherwise no-body would ever make a mistake.
Furthermore on the approach you would be flying with a low powersetting so the signs are likely to be less obvious.
If appropriate I will be more than happy to bow to your greater knowledge and experience, but you may find reading the following report as sobering as I and more experienced twin-drivers did.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gilgw/gilgw.htm
FD
Well yes you are off course correct when it comes to reciting the textbook.
However real life is usually a bit different, otherwise no-body would ever make a mistake.
Furthermore on the approach you would be flying with a low powersetting so the signs are likely to be less obvious.
If appropriate I will be more than happy to bow to your greater knowledge and experience, but you may find reading the following report as sobering as I and more experienced twin-drivers did.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gilgw/gilgw.htm
FD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck
The theory is sound...
The failure of an engine is only infrequently as clear-cut as is the case when we simulate a failure. The clear cut movement of the ball to permit a "dead leg dead engine" diagnosis is not so readily apparent when the engines are developing lower levels of power, such as during an intermediate descent. In fact simply identifying that an engine has failed may cause problems under these circumstances
Similarly, engine failure on approach tends to coincide with the throttle movement that frequently accompanies the dropping of the final stage of flap, and at this stage, the margin of speed over blue line will often be minimal.
There are sadly a number of accidents in which the real-world problems of identifying an engine failure in precisely these circumstances have had a fatal outcome in types as diverse as the Seneca and the B737.
Keep with the theory, but don't overlook some of the real-world problems
The theory is sound...
The failure of an engine is only infrequently as clear-cut as is the case when we simulate a failure. The clear cut movement of the ball to permit a "dead leg dead engine" diagnosis is not so readily apparent when the engines are developing lower levels of power, such as during an intermediate descent. In fact simply identifying that an engine has failed may cause problems under these circumstances
Similarly, engine failure on approach tends to coincide with the throttle movement that frequently accompanies the dropping of the final stage of flap, and at this stage, the margin of speed over blue line will often be minimal.
There are sadly a number of accidents in which the real-world problems of identifying an engine failure in precisely these circumstances have had a fatal outcome in types as diverse as the Seneca and the B737.
Keep with the theory, but don't overlook some of the real-world problems
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D's
That’s what I was trying to point out in my first post. Sometimes (perhaps "much" was too excessive) it would be better to be in a single, IFR not being in the original questions remit.
QDM, must agree, keep them high and tight is my philosophy (traffic permitting - before I get lambasted)
LF
That’s what I was trying to point out in my first post. Sometimes (perhaps "much" was too excessive) it would be better to be in a single, IFR not being in the original questions remit.
QDM, must agree, keep them high and tight is my philosophy (traffic permitting - before I get lambasted)
LF
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
twodonkeys & Flyn'Dutch:
I don't know why I get myself into these no win discussions.
However the accident report was very long and indepth as to what the board could confirm. Also it is a very unusual accident in that it seems to be a one pilot decision making process, however we will never know.
When I give a pre take off brief I state.
" In the event of an engine problem below VR I will reject the take off. If we have an engine problem after lift off I will fly the airplane straight ahead. We will identify the problem. We will agree on a solution to the problem. We will solve the problem as agreed upon."
The briefing remains the same which ever pilot is pilot flying.
The safety factor with this briefing is we know in advance what we will do. " FLY THE AIRPLANE STRAIGHT AHEAD " until the problem is identified and solved.
Engine failure during the approach should not result in a loss of the airplane. Period.
Cat Driver:
I don't know why I get myself into these no win discussions.
However the accident report was very long and indepth as to what the board could confirm. Also it is a very unusual accident in that it seems to be a one pilot decision making process, however we will never know.
When I give a pre take off brief I state.
" In the event of an engine problem below VR I will reject the take off. If we have an engine problem after lift off I will fly the airplane straight ahead. We will identify the problem. We will agree on a solution to the problem. We will solve the problem as agreed upon."
The briefing remains the same which ever pilot is pilot flying.
The safety factor with this briefing is we know in advance what we will do. " FLY THE AIRPLANE STRAIGHT AHEAD " until the problem is identified and solved.
Engine failure during the approach should not result in a loss of the airplane. Period.
Cat Driver:
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
I can't speak for Flying Dutch, but I think that we are violently agreeing.
It is a fact that any conventional aircraft will glide at an angle somewhat steeper than 3 degrees. As a result, should a powerplant fail during an instrument approach, the remaining power plant(s) will need to provide additional power to maintain the 3 degree descent. To a greater or lesser extent, this will cause increased yaw with increased handling issues. These issues will be made worse by any drag caused by the configuration of the airframe.
When we fly an approach visually, other considerations notwithstanding, it is not a bad thing to fly a somewhat steeper approach, minimising this effect.
There is more to identifying a real life (as opposed to simulated) engine failure than pushing the throttles forward though, as those of us who have had one or two will confirm. Not least, because in real life, engine failures are rarely complete engine deaths. Rather, they tend to take the form of intermittent loss of power, or surging in the first instance. The ball (and rudder) will often ricochet from one side to the other, making dead-leg dead-engine tough to work through.
Finally, worth recalling that Vr (and V1 and V2) is of little relevance to a light twin. If the engine fails when you are on the deck, you are going to stay there.
I can't speak for Flying Dutch, but I think that we are violently agreeing.
It is a fact that any conventional aircraft will glide at an angle somewhat steeper than 3 degrees. As a result, should a powerplant fail during an instrument approach, the remaining power plant(s) will need to provide additional power to maintain the 3 degree descent. To a greater or lesser extent, this will cause increased yaw with increased handling issues. These issues will be made worse by any drag caused by the configuration of the airframe.
When we fly an approach visually, other considerations notwithstanding, it is not a bad thing to fly a somewhat steeper approach, minimising this effect.
There is more to identifying a real life (as opposed to simulated) engine failure than pushing the throttles forward though, as those of us who have had one or two will confirm. Not least, because in real life, engine failures are rarely complete engine deaths. Rather, they tend to take the form of intermittent loss of power, or surging in the first instance. The ball (and rudder) will often ricochet from one side to the other, making dead-leg dead-engine tough to work through.
Finally, worth recalling that Vr (and V1 and V2) is of little relevance to a light twin. If the engine fails when you are on the deck, you are going to stay there.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck
The sallient points of the AAIB report:
The crew was:
1. Well trained
2. Fresh
3. Experienced
I appreciate what you are saying about pre-take off brief but merely stating it, is not going to make it work!
Chuck stated:
I think the operative word here is: Should.
Reality is different from the textbook, again, I am afraid.
Take it you never make a mistake?
FD
The sallient points of the AAIB report:
The crew was:
1. Well trained
2. Fresh
3. Experienced
I appreciate what you are saying about pre-take off brief but merely stating it, is not going to make it work!
Chuck stated:
Engine failure during the approach should not result in a loss of the airplane. Period.
Reality is different from the textbook, again, I am afraid.
Take it you never make a mistake?
FD
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It gives me the willies to see SEPs doing a 3 degree approach at Kidlington. I was in an aircraft doing just that at Kidlington once and the approach was over woods with no alternative should the donk quit. I raised it with the pilot, an instructor, after the flight and his basic response was`Our engine is regularly serviced and replaced every 2000 hours, it cannot fail.`I did not proceed with the conversation.
On the few times I have flown in the RAF Tutors I work with, the circuit is probably tight enough on the downwind leg to get in but I doubt that you would by the time you turn onto the crosswind leg and some power is used all the way down.
In my Motorglider, when possible, the circuit is kept tight enough to get in from any point and `circuit power` is maintained until a point is reached where the engine is throttled right back and forgotten about. The approach is then controlled with a combination of attitude and airbrake. If you get it right, you effectively pull virtually all the airbrake and leave it there. If you are going `long` you can just stick the nose down a bit. With those big paddles the speed doesn`t build up much and is soon bled off once you raise the nose. Alternatively, you can feed in more and more brake as you descend, keeping the airspeed constant. This method is surely applicable to an aircraft fitted with flaps. Start your approach clean and aiming long then feed in flap as you get closer and safer.
Who am I to say? I`m only an amateur.
Mike W
On the few times I have flown in the RAF Tutors I work with, the circuit is probably tight enough on the downwind leg to get in but I doubt that you would by the time you turn onto the crosswind leg and some power is used all the way down.
In my Motorglider, when possible, the circuit is kept tight enough to get in from any point and `circuit power` is maintained until a point is reached where the engine is throttled right back and forgotten about. The approach is then controlled with a combination of attitude and airbrake. If you get it right, you effectively pull virtually all the airbrake and leave it there. If you are going `long` you can just stick the nose down a bit. With those big paddles the speed doesn`t build up much and is soon bled off once you raise the nose. Alternatively, you can feed in more and more brake as you descend, keeping the airspeed constant. This method is surely applicable to an aircraft fitted with flaps. Start your approach clean and aiming long then feed in flap as you get closer and safer.
Who am I to say? I`m only an amateur.
Mike W
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2donkeys:
I agree we are really not getting anywhere with this.
As to real life engine failures in multi engine aircraft I understand what they can and will do. In the last forty five or so years of flying multi engine aircraft for a living both fixed and rotary wing I think I have experienced about every problem you can think of, or almost every problem. I have had turbines fail as well as small piston and large radials fail in flight. In fact I had a failure one day just at the moment of lift off with an over gross of about two thousand pounds. It was in a waterbomber, punched the load out and feathered, then flew 75 miles to an airport and changed the engine.
As to your comment on light twins and engine failure on the deck, I guess it all depends on what light twin you are flying. A Seneca 1 will probably not get to far if you are heavy, however an Aerocommander 790B will climb like hell on one, if you are flying it correctly.
Anyhow this thread was about approaches, not take offs.
So I guess I am out of this.
Take care.
Cat Driver:
Flyin'Dutch':
I was not being critical of the pilot in the accident report, I merely commented on what was written in the report. None of us know what exactly happened during those few moments when his problems started.
As to your remarks about pre take off briefs.
I don't have any idea of what you do in an airplane, however we use pre take off briefs based on the factors relating to every take off. I can assure you we do not just state it, we follow them. That is what CRM and trained crews are all about.
Anyhow this is not going to get better so you fly your way and I will fly my way.
Oh by the way, yes. I have made many, many mistakes flying aircraft and learned from every mistake.
I also know enough to understand that we canno't be in control of everything, all it takes is wrong place wrong time and its all over.
Cat Driver:
I agree we are really not getting anywhere with this.
As to real life engine failures in multi engine aircraft I understand what they can and will do. In the last forty five or so years of flying multi engine aircraft for a living both fixed and rotary wing I think I have experienced about every problem you can think of, or almost every problem. I have had turbines fail as well as small piston and large radials fail in flight. In fact I had a failure one day just at the moment of lift off with an over gross of about two thousand pounds. It was in a waterbomber, punched the load out and feathered, then flew 75 miles to an airport and changed the engine.
As to your comment on light twins and engine failure on the deck, I guess it all depends on what light twin you are flying. A Seneca 1 will probably not get to far if you are heavy, however an Aerocommander 790B will climb like hell on one, if you are flying it correctly.
Anyhow this thread was about approaches, not take offs.
So I guess I am out of this.
Take care.
Cat Driver:
Flyin'Dutch':
I was not being critical of the pilot in the accident report, I merely commented on what was written in the report. None of us know what exactly happened during those few moments when his problems started.
As to your remarks about pre take off briefs.
I don't have any idea of what you do in an airplane, however we use pre take off briefs based on the factors relating to every take off. I can assure you we do not just state it, we follow them. That is what CRM and trained crews are all about.
Anyhow this is not going to get better so you fly your way and I will fly my way.
Oh by the way, yes. I have made many, many mistakes flying aircraft and learned from every mistake.
I also know enough to understand that we canno't be in control of everything, all it takes is wrong place wrong time and its all over.
Cat Driver:
Oh it does feel good to hear so many esteemed individuals re-enforcing one of my favourite hobby-horses. 2Donkeys, you're a pilot after my own heart.
I was taught doing my microlight PPL (before my GA/SEP PPL) that it's only got one engine and you always fly as if it was about to stop. Flying in the back of a Hawk on my ETPS course we applied the same principle, albeit that we did at-least have an opt-out. This is good practice, and even some GA instructors understand the principle.
Yet this apparently goes out the window in the standard GA circuit where a flat 3° approach is considered more important than the risk of engine failure. The problem (at most airfields anyway) is utterly avoidable through a combination of a steep approach and [shock from the audience as I speak a civil heresy) a constant aspect circuit.
On the odd occasions (about half a dozen a year) that I fly new homebuilts I always try and fly constant aspect, tight, circuits so that if the engine coughs I'll make the runway from anywhere in the circuit. Middle of this year I proved it worked as a Jabiru decided to stop going in the middle of base. Tighten the finals turn a little, sweat a little, don't bend an aeroplane!
3° approach, combined with a civil rectangular circuit, and this is absolutely impossible.
If at Kidlington they are teaching 3° approaches to their baby ATPLs I can understand the rationale. IF they have properly assessed the risk - which in my book means only doing it on runways where there's an option if the engine conks.
G
I was taught doing my microlight PPL (before my GA/SEP PPL) that it's only got one engine and you always fly as if it was about to stop. Flying in the back of a Hawk on my ETPS course we applied the same principle, albeit that we did at-least have an opt-out. This is good practice, and even some GA instructors understand the principle.
Yet this apparently goes out the window in the standard GA circuit where a flat 3° approach is considered more important than the risk of engine failure. The problem (at most airfields anyway) is utterly avoidable through a combination of a steep approach and [shock from the audience as I speak a civil heresy) a constant aspect circuit.
On the odd occasions (about half a dozen a year) that I fly new homebuilts I always try and fly constant aspect, tight, circuits so that if the engine coughs I'll make the runway from anywhere in the circuit. Middle of this year I proved it worked as a Jabiru decided to stop going in the middle of base. Tighten the finals turn a little, sweat a little, don't bend an aeroplane!
3° approach, combined with a civil rectangular circuit, and this is absolutely impossible.
If at Kidlington they are teaching 3° approaches to their baby ATPLs I can understand the rationale. IF they have properly assessed the risk - which in my book means only doing it on runways where there's an option if the engine conks.
G
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree wholeheartedly.
Just to add with another query - how do you feel about your ability to recognise certain symptoms when wearing a very good ANR headset.
I tried one last week for the first time and felt as though one of my senses had almost been removed. I do not have a "musical" ear and the props have to be pretty well out of synch at the best of times for me to twiddle the levers, however, the ANR just about totally deprived me.
Okay, hearing is not the bee all and end all of engine failure identification, far from it. But I felt uncomfortable nevertheless.
Just to add with another query - how do you feel about your ability to recognise certain symptoms when wearing a very good ANR headset.
I tried one last week for the first time and felt as though one of my senses had almost been removed. I do not have a "musical" ear and the props have to be pretty well out of synch at the best of times for me to twiddle the levers, however, the ANR just about totally deprived me.
Okay, hearing is not the bee all and end all of engine failure identification, far from it. But I felt uncomfortable nevertheless.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You arent the first peron I have heard say that Sharpshot, I know one instructor who if new students turn up with one takes it off them until they can fly the aircraft as he says they are a nightmare otherwise!
I have to say I get some comfort in hearing the engine, you never know it may give you that few extra seconds to sort something out before the fan at the front stops and you start to sweat.....
I have to say I get some comfort in hearing the engine, you never know it may give you that few extra seconds to sort something out before the fan at the front stops and you start to sweat.....
I'm afraid my answer is rather simplistic. The only time I've ever flown with an ANR headset it annoyed me so much that I've never repeated the experience. I might break that rule if I was routinely flying a D-series Shadow, but I can't think of any other type where I wouldn't rather have a decent conventional headset.
G
G
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The steeper approach has so many advantages for smaller aircraft. To list just a few:
1. You stand a chance of making the airfield after an engine failure. (I once had one at the end of downwind leg. I was in a motor glider, so the only thing it changed was my stress level - but it brought home the fact that it can happen at any time.)
2. You spend less time at low level. At one airfield I regularly fly from, trees and terrain before the runway cause unpleasant and unpredicatble low-level turbulence in a crosswind. A flatish approach forces you to fly through it. A steep approach, and the problem vanishes.
3. It's more neighbourly to fly a bit higher at a low power setting.
Having said all of that, though, there are still plenty of places where you'd be stuffed if your engine failed on approach. Anyone been to Antwerp? Houses in every direction right up to the airport fence.
1. You stand a chance of making the airfield after an engine failure. (I once had one at the end of downwind leg. I was in a motor glider, so the only thing it changed was my stress level - but it brought home the fact that it can happen at any time.)
2. You spend less time at low level. At one airfield I regularly fly from, trees and terrain before the runway cause unpleasant and unpredicatble low-level turbulence in a crosswind. A flatish approach forces you to fly through it. A steep approach, and the problem vanishes.
3. It's more neighbourly to fly a bit higher at a low power setting.
Having said all of that, though, there are still plenty of places where you'd be stuffed if your engine failed on approach. Anyone been to Antwerp? Houses in every direction right up to the airport fence.