Practice forced landings
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Romsey
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practice forced landings
I am a PPL student, just in the process of taking my skills test. Due to the w/x, managed everything except the stalls, PFL's and steep turns.
After completing glide approaches in the circuit, the examiner was telling me that when doing glides, + PFL's the initial touchdown point should be approx 2/3 along the runway / into the field, and then when on final approach, this touchdown point is brought topwards the runway threshold with the use of flap (in a PFL, tghe aiming point should be brought slightly closer to the start of the field as you are going downwind, and then the same applies)......ie you should always use full flap.
I do see that this method may ensure that you don't ever undershoot the field, however in the PPL books, and my 2 instructors both have been teaching me to pick an initial aiming point 1/3 into the filed, which you stick to and fly a circuit around (high key / low key / constant curve on downwind with wingtip pointing to tochdown point).
Any comments on this would be appreciated. Not quite sure now which to aim for on my test on Thursday. Also, if using a point 2/3 into field, at what point should I be aiming my wing tip whilst on downwind? I felt happy using the 1/3 point, but have to consider keeping the examiner happy also!
thanks
jwright
After completing glide approaches in the circuit, the examiner was telling me that when doing glides, + PFL's the initial touchdown point should be approx 2/3 along the runway / into the field, and then when on final approach, this touchdown point is brought topwards the runway threshold with the use of flap (in a PFL, tghe aiming point should be brought slightly closer to the start of the field as you are going downwind, and then the same applies)......ie you should always use full flap.
I do see that this method may ensure that you don't ever undershoot the field, however in the PPL books, and my 2 instructors both have been teaching me to pick an initial aiming point 1/3 into the filed, which you stick to and fly a circuit around (high key / low key / constant curve on downwind with wingtip pointing to tochdown point).
Any comments on this would be appreciated. Not quite sure now which to aim for on my test on Thursday. Also, if using a point 2/3 into field, at what point should I be aiming my wing tip whilst on downwind? I felt happy using the 1/3 point, but have to consider keeping the examiner happy also!
thanks
jwright
Don't forget you want to walk away from this thing. ( use whatever works for you)
I was told that, on base, I should aim for something 1/3 of the way into the field and that that point should be 1/3 up your left window. Once that point is reached one should turn towards the field.
Once on the "final" and when that point(1/3 into the field) had gone under the nose of the a/c, pull the next stage of flap. This will give you a nose down (to maintain best glide speed) and reveal the aim point again.
The point will disappear under the noes. Pull the next stage of flap. the aim point appears again.
In the the archer there are only 2 or 3 stages so you can guess what comes next.
By this time you should be pretty much on profile for the "forced landin site" and able to land.
This method seems to work regardless of wind (unless really, really strong)
I was told that, on base, I should aim for something 1/3 of the way into the field and that that point should be 1/3 up your left window. Once that point is reached one should turn towards the field.
Once on the "final" and when that point(1/3 into the field) had gone under the nose of the a/c, pull the next stage of flap. This will give you a nose down (to maintain best glide speed) and reveal the aim point again.
The point will disappear under the noes. Pull the next stage of flap. the aim point appears again.
In the the archer there are only 2 or 3 stages so you can guess what comes next.
By this time you should be pretty much on profile for the "forced landin site" and able to land.
This method seems to work regardless of wind (unless really, really strong)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saaaaaaffffhampton
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFL's
OK not an instructor but here goes
Remember that you should pick your 1000ft point at which the field can be made, a visual point that you can aim for at the start of your base turn or late downwind, always keep the field close to you.
As maximum said your more likely to walk away from an overshoot as opposed to hitting something on the approach at a higher speed and still airbourne.
at the 1000ft point you should be looking about 2/3rds down the field as a touchdown then when you know you are going to make it, depending on your height of course is to add flap in stages or 2 stages immediately if your too high and final stage in the last 1/4 mile or so when you are positive your gonna make it.
If you are too high and theres nothing around thats as suitable try sideslipping the plane to reduce height while keeping your speed at approach, however i would not try this unless you are comfortable with it, i did 3 hours with an instructor when i passed doing side slipping , most of all it was damn good fun too.
All the things you are taught should be taken on board, in reality when it comes to the crunch they work, i have had a real engine fault, a bit of self confidence a good instructor and plenty of practice, but most of all and you probably heard it anyway, a landing you can walk away from is a good one.
Remember that you should pick your 1000ft point at which the field can be made, a visual point that you can aim for at the start of your base turn or late downwind, always keep the field close to you.
As maximum said your more likely to walk away from an overshoot as opposed to hitting something on the approach at a higher speed and still airbourne.
at the 1000ft point you should be looking about 2/3rds down the field as a touchdown then when you know you are going to make it, depending on your height of course is to add flap in stages or 2 stages immediately if your too high and final stage in the last 1/4 mile or so when you are positive your gonna make it.
If you are too high and theres nothing around thats as suitable try sideslipping the plane to reduce height while keeping your speed at approach, however i would not try this unless you are comfortable with it, i did 3 hours with an instructor when i passed doing side slipping , most of all it was damn good fun too.
All the things you are taught should be taken on board, in reality when it comes to the crunch they work, i have had a real engine fault, a bit of self confidence a good instructor and plenty of practice, but most of all and you probably heard it anyway, a landing you can walk away from is a good one.
The examiner is looking for the "semblance" of a circuit (ie an element of planning) and also the fact that you end up into wind.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating - be flexible, if it's obvious your plan is not working out then change it! In the real world, if you and your pax walk away unscathed from the wreckage and nobody on the ground has been hurt then you have achieved the objective - ie to save life!
The proof of the pudding is in the eating - be flexible, if it's obvious your plan is not working out then change it! In the real world, if you and your pax walk away unscathed from the wreckage and nobody on the ground has been hurt then you have achieved the objective - ie to save life!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without having been there I can't say but either your examiner said the wrong thing by mistake or you misunderstood him. Your IAP (Initial Aiming Point, note - not touchdown point) should be 1/3 of the way into the field NOT 2/3, unless he meant from the far end. The approach is flown to that point until touchdown is assured (i.e. you're pretty much straight in on final approach) whereupon full/landing flap can be used to steepen the last part of the approach and bring the aiming point back towards the near boundary. Unless you are in a Fiesler Storch or similar an IAP 2/3 into the field is too far. Most people tend to overshoot anyway so you'd be clanging into the far wall/hedge a lot faster than is healthy 
.
.
Last edited by DB6; 18th May 2003 at 15:19.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
I've dealt with more than a few different examiners over the years and I've never yet heard of a 2/3 point! The 1/3 point is pretty much the gospel at every flying school on earth. DB6's post pretty much sums it up, do what he says and you'll be OK
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having recently completed a flight instructor's rating at a respected school the following is what I was taught to teach. Note the methods I have been taught down the years vary somewhat, so this is not the only way.
Initial aiming point is 1/3 down the field. From this extends a short final, then from the projected start of final extends a long base at 90 degrees in the appropriate direction (left hand if possible if you are in the left seat) to a 1000-foot point ("low key" in the military parlance). Fly to be at this point at 1000' agl, using a spiral circuit from "high key" if you like or any planned route (monitor as you fly).
From the 1000-foot point you are aiming to fly base and final to land 1/3 in, the long base allows a lot of adjustment. When you are certain you are going to land 1/3 of the way in select first stage flap, aim 1/4 of the way in. When you are certain you will make 1/4 in select next stage and aim 1/8 in. When you are certain you will make 1/8 in select full flap and aim for the "threshold".
I have never heard of anyone advising aiming 2/3 of the way in.
If you prefer tell your examiner before the trip how you will fly the PFL, as it is how you have been taught. As it is a recognised technique he should accept this.
Best of luck!
Initial aiming point is 1/3 down the field. From this extends a short final, then from the projected start of final extends a long base at 90 degrees in the appropriate direction (left hand if possible if you are in the left seat) to a 1000-foot point ("low key" in the military parlance). Fly to be at this point at 1000' agl, using a spiral circuit from "high key" if you like or any planned route (monitor as you fly).
From the 1000-foot point you are aiming to fly base and final to land 1/3 in, the long base allows a lot of adjustment. When you are certain you are going to land 1/3 of the way in select first stage flap, aim 1/4 of the way in. When you are certain you will make 1/4 in select next stage and aim 1/8 in. When you are certain you will make 1/8 in select full flap and aim for the "threshold".
I have never heard of anyone advising aiming 2/3 of the way in.
If you prefer tell your examiner before the trip how you will fly the PFL, as it is how you have been taught. As it is a recognised technique he should accept this.
Best of luck!
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, got to disagree a little here but...
Firstly, if you want to pass, do what the examiner says. You might get him to clarify it, especially if you have been taught differently.
Now as for "make a circuit" and "so many nm out", that's all good and well, but when it comes time to use the technique for real, you may have only one field available and it could be a long straight final away, or underneath you or anywhere. A rote technique may not apply, and who's to say that you can judge 1nm accurately anyway.
As for using flaps, are they electric or manual? How long do they take to extend? Can you be sure they'll actually deploy? Both of them? What'll happen to your glidepath as they extend? What if you put too much in?
I think a much better technique is to set 'em early - if the flightpath will allow them, aim long and slip it in, taking care to monitor the speed. The benefit is that if you control the glidepath by flaps, you can only ever make it steeper. If you control it by slipping, you can make it steeper or shallower.
Speed is also important. There's no point landing a C152 in your field at 90kts, you're going to float all the way to the trees.
Finally, wind direction. What if your field is directly in front of you (and you're low), but you have a tail wind? Not necessarily a problem to downwind it if it's only a couple of knots. What if it has upslope/downslope or power lines at one end? What if it's a rectangle and into the wind is the short direction, but the cross wind'll give you a mile to stop. What if the sun's really low and will distract you? You don't necessarily have to land into the wind.
Your goal should be to get down safely, let the people live even at the expense of the a/c if necessary.
Disclaimer: This isn't meant to critisise the other posters or to say I'm any better than them. It's meant to make you think about the situation as opposed to learning a rote technique.
Firstly, if you want to pass, do what the examiner says. You might get him to clarify it, especially if you have been taught differently.
Now as for "make a circuit" and "so many nm out", that's all good and well, but when it comes time to use the technique for real, you may have only one field available and it could be a long straight final away, or underneath you or anywhere. A rote technique may not apply, and who's to say that you can judge 1nm accurately anyway.
As for using flaps, are they electric or manual? How long do they take to extend? Can you be sure they'll actually deploy? Both of them? What'll happen to your glidepath as they extend? What if you put too much in?
I think a much better technique is to set 'em early - if the flightpath will allow them, aim long and slip it in, taking care to monitor the speed. The benefit is that if you control the glidepath by flaps, you can only ever make it steeper. If you control it by slipping, you can make it steeper or shallower.
Speed is also important. There's no point landing a C152 in your field at 90kts, you're going to float all the way to the trees.
Finally, wind direction. What if your field is directly in front of you (and you're low), but you have a tail wind? Not necessarily a problem to downwind it if it's only a couple of knots. What if it has upslope/downslope or power lines at one end? What if it's a rectangle and into the wind is the short direction, but the cross wind'll give you a mile to stop. What if the sun's really low and will distract you? You don't necessarily have to land into the wind.
Your goal should be to get down safely, let the people live even at the expense of the a/c if necessary.
Disclaimer: This isn't meant to critisise the other posters or to say I'm any better than them. It's meant to make you think about the situation as opposed to learning a rote technique.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onan
A well-taught structured PFL circuit should take into account everything you are talking about.
The initial aiming point of 1/3 in is a perfectly acceptible place to land in a good field, so if you do not have flap (really not your day if you have an engine failure and flap or battery failure, but possible) there is no problem. Practice on the aircraft you are likely to be flying is always advisable, so you should be used to the time taken to extend them and the trim changes - this is incorporated into the approach view the student is taught ot expect.
Slipping should be considered when the approach turns out to be too high, not a matter of course, especially as their are better and particularly safer ways of using up excess height. That is the idea of a short final, long base - it allows flexibility as to when to turn in towards the field. Too high, turn late. Too low, turn early. I would argue that whatever else you do fly a base leg to the field. Everything else can be adjusted on the base leg and turning final.
Speed is of course important. That has been assumed and not discussed here. The best glide speed should be kept when straight or in shallow turns, increased in medium turns. Speed can be used in some circumstances to shorten or even lengthen the glide, but it is important these factors are discussed more thoroughly than is possible here (increasing speed can sometimes lengthen the glide, sometimes shorten the glide).
Only in exceptional circumstances should a forced landing be attempted with wind behind. These would not entail a structured circuit, as they would be restricted to engine failure at low level flying downwind. That is also beyond the scope of this discussion so far. In any of the other conditions you mention a good PFL circuit is still very useful.
I agree that "x nm out" is not always useful, as wind strength and anyh crosswind will vary the figure, but it can be a handy guide from which to adjust for current conditions.
A well-taught structured PFL circuit should take into account everything you are talking about.
The initial aiming point of 1/3 in is a perfectly acceptible place to land in a good field, so if you do not have flap (really not your day if you have an engine failure and flap or battery failure, but possible) there is no problem. Practice on the aircraft you are likely to be flying is always advisable, so you should be used to the time taken to extend them and the trim changes - this is incorporated into the approach view the student is taught ot expect.
Slipping should be considered when the approach turns out to be too high, not a matter of course, especially as their are better and particularly safer ways of using up excess height. That is the idea of a short final, long base - it allows flexibility as to when to turn in towards the field. Too high, turn late. Too low, turn early. I would argue that whatever else you do fly a base leg to the field. Everything else can be adjusted on the base leg and turning final.
Speed is of course important. That has been assumed and not discussed here. The best glide speed should be kept when straight or in shallow turns, increased in medium turns. Speed can be used in some circumstances to shorten or even lengthen the glide, but it is important these factors are discussed more thoroughly than is possible here (increasing speed can sometimes lengthen the glide, sometimes shorten the glide).
Only in exceptional circumstances should a forced landing be attempted with wind behind. These would not entail a structured circuit, as they would be restricted to engine failure at low level flying downwind. That is also beyond the scope of this discussion so far. In any of the other conditions you mention a good PFL circuit is still very useful.
I agree that "x nm out" is not always useful, as wind strength and anyh crosswind will vary the figure, but it can be a handy guide from which to adjust for current conditions.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns
A good reply but I'd make a couple of points.
Why would you say slipping is less safe option to lose height? I use the technique just about avery time I fly jumpers.
There's nothing dangerous about it and it gives you the option of correcting for a glideslope that's too shallow. Every landing in a glider is a forced landing and they use speed brakes to allow an adjustment either side of the current glideslope. Perhaps a contrived analogy, but if all they could do was aim for the field and then shorten things up, there'd be plenty of undershoot accidents every year. Instead, they can ease off the speedbrakes and extend the glideslope. The same capabilities are available with a slip. Also speed control is a lot easier in a slip.
Talking about which, I read an interesting article once that suggested a min sink speed would be better until you found someplace to go to. At that point a best glide speed would probably be more usefull. I though this was a good point.
As for long base, short final: perhaps, perhaps not. It could be possible to misread the wind on base, make your turn and realise it was a lot stronger than you had imagined. Maybe a longer final would yield a more stable approach.
Obviously I'm not suggesting downwinding it on a 20kt day, but, there are definately times when a downwind landing is appropriate. I sometimes do it in regular operations because the cargo ramp is at the end of a very long runway and it'll get me there more quickly, likewise a downwind takeoff. Another airport I used had a significant slope (in Texas too), so we always landed uphill and took off downhill. The power lines at the end were an added incentive for this.
Again glider operations, but the sylabus calls for a downwind landing in the event of rope break on take off (I think it's between 500' agl and tpa).
What if you had a rough field into wind, or a 10,000 concrete strip pointing downwind? Which would you take?
Teaching a set routine to a low time student makes sense as it probably will be rote learning that'll save them when it counts, but I think at some point, it behooves a pilot to think about their flying and not just do it because it was taught a certain way.
Anyway this isn't meant to be critical and I'd be interested in your responses.
A good reply but I'd make a couple of points.
Why would you say slipping is less safe option to lose height? I use the technique just about avery time I fly jumpers.
There's nothing dangerous about it and it gives you the option of correcting for a glideslope that's too shallow. Every landing in a glider is a forced landing and they use speed brakes to allow an adjustment either side of the current glideslope. Perhaps a contrived analogy, but if all they could do was aim for the field and then shorten things up, there'd be plenty of undershoot accidents every year. Instead, they can ease off the speedbrakes and extend the glideslope. The same capabilities are available with a slip. Also speed control is a lot easier in a slip.
Talking about which, I read an interesting article once that suggested a min sink speed would be better until you found someplace to go to. At that point a best glide speed would probably be more usefull. I though this was a good point.
As for long base, short final: perhaps, perhaps not. It could be possible to misread the wind on base, make your turn and realise it was a lot stronger than you had imagined. Maybe a longer final would yield a more stable approach.
Obviously I'm not suggesting downwinding it on a 20kt day, but, there are definately times when a downwind landing is appropriate. I sometimes do it in regular operations because the cargo ramp is at the end of a very long runway and it'll get me there more quickly, likewise a downwind takeoff. Another airport I used had a significant slope (in Texas too), so we always landed uphill and took off downhill. The power lines at the end were an added incentive for this.
Again glider operations, but the sylabus calls for a downwind landing in the event of rope break on take off (I think it's between 500' agl and tpa).
What if you had a rough field into wind, or a 10,000 concrete strip pointing downwind? Which would you take?
Teaching a set routine to a low time student makes sense as it probably will be rote learning that'll save them when it counts, but I think at some point, it behooves a pilot to think about their flying and not just do it because it was taught a certain way.
Anyway this isn't meant to be critical and I'd be interested in your responses.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason slipping is considered more dangerous than other techniques (though not so dangerous as to prohibit) in the glide is that the aircraft is at low speed. The slip can increase stall speed a little, and with increased drag there is a chance of a distracted, busy, inexperienced pilot stalling. Not too much of a problem in balanced flight, stall recovery is relatively easy. If an aircraft stalls while slipping it may well spin.
Good point about min sink then best glide, but the difference is slight in a training aircraft, and we teach an early decision as most PPL flying is at low enough level that the glide will be a busy time. The change in speed simply is another issue to worry about, and I would not consider teaching this to a pre-PPL student.
The base is used to assess the wind amongst other factors. The drift is adequate for this, as a strong wind will blow the aircraft out, giving apparent sink below the normal sight-line angle, and causing the pilot to turn in early.
The problem with a long final is that the aircraft is committed. The glide can be shortened, but never extended. I think that is why you are so enthusiastic about slipping in to allow extension. A glider's airbrakes are designed for this sort of operation, training aircraft have no such advantages. I have never been taught a long final. The stable approach is no good if you find you are too low. The short final/long base allows all the extension/adjustment required.
I can think of no reason I would choose to land downwind after an engine failure that would not leave me with such a great advantage that the bastardisation of the usual circuit would be simple, except perhaps the "only one option" going over vast woodland, that can only be flown the day it happens so is not in the scope of a discussion of training.
Your "10,000-foot concrete" is fine, just fly for it the best you can. Aim 1/3 of the way down, flaps, certain of 1/4 more flaps, certain of 1/8, full flap. You'll land about 1/4 - 1/3 the way down, as the flap only makes difference of 1/3 of a small field, not much in 10,000 ft! However that again cannot be taught: either there is only one way to make it, so fly straight there and select flaps as above, or you're close enough to make some sort of base and final either downwind or into wind, in which case fly as taught in the syllabus. Any other reason for landing downwind must be a last-minute choice, in which case all that can be used is the EFATO techniques.
Important note: the PPL syllabus specifically does not include "turnbacks" - downwind landings from engine failure shortly after take off, similar to your description of gliders losing tows. In the military their practice is banned from all but instrtuctors as they will kill you if you are not very good or do not have plenty of height. They still did killed a few I heard about. Gliders have a steep climb out and a good glide ratio, plus pilots experienced in engine-off landings, so are much safer in this manouever.
Downwind PFLs from the crosswind leg were standard training where I learnt to fly, but you have a whole big field, may have a convenient runway and are in about the right place.
Good point about min sink then best glide, but the difference is slight in a training aircraft, and we teach an early decision as most PPL flying is at low enough level that the glide will be a busy time. The change in speed simply is another issue to worry about, and I would not consider teaching this to a pre-PPL student.
The base is used to assess the wind amongst other factors. The drift is adequate for this, as a strong wind will blow the aircraft out, giving apparent sink below the normal sight-line angle, and causing the pilot to turn in early.
The problem with a long final is that the aircraft is committed. The glide can be shortened, but never extended. I think that is why you are so enthusiastic about slipping in to allow extension. A glider's airbrakes are designed for this sort of operation, training aircraft have no such advantages. I have never been taught a long final. The stable approach is no good if you find you are too low. The short final/long base allows all the extension/adjustment required.
I can think of no reason I would choose to land downwind after an engine failure that would not leave me with such a great advantage that the bastardisation of the usual circuit would be simple, except perhaps the "only one option" going over vast woodland, that can only be flown the day it happens so is not in the scope of a discussion of training.
Your "10,000-foot concrete" is fine, just fly for it the best you can. Aim 1/3 of the way down, flaps, certain of 1/4 more flaps, certain of 1/8, full flap. You'll land about 1/4 - 1/3 the way down, as the flap only makes difference of 1/3 of a small field, not much in 10,000 ft! However that again cannot be taught: either there is only one way to make it, so fly straight there and select flaps as above, or you're close enough to make some sort of base and final either downwind or into wind, in which case fly as taught in the syllabus. Any other reason for landing downwind must be a last-minute choice, in which case all that can be used is the EFATO techniques.
Important note: the PPL syllabus specifically does not include "turnbacks" - downwind landings from engine failure shortly after take off, similar to your description of gliders losing tows. In the military their practice is banned from all but instrtuctors as they will kill you if you are not very good or do not have plenty of height. They still did killed a few I heard about. Gliders have a steep climb out and a good glide ratio, plus pilots experienced in engine-off landings, so are much safer in this manouever.
Downwind PFLs from the crosswind leg were standard training where I learnt to fly, but you have a whole big field, may have a convenient runway and are in about the right place.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns,
Slips can be done at any speed. If you get slow, just roll the nose over a bit. Pitch controls airspeed and amount of x-control controls rate of descent. But you are right about a x-controlled stall resulting in a spin.
You're also right about my enthusiasm for slips stemming from allowing the glideslope to be both lengthened and shortened. I guess I'm saying it's another tool that the pilot can use, and I'm not saying a circuit is a bad method either.
What I am trying to say is that there are many options available and rather than teach rote performances, I think the student will benefit more from being made to think about why these 'rules' were made.
I would probably teach a PPL candidate a circuit type procedure, but would hint of other options that he could use. By the time he graduated, I would have shown him some of them, not to show how good I am, but to make him think. I would want him to become an aviator and not just a pilot.
As for landing downwind: again, I'm talking low wind speeds, because we don't want to overspeed the tyres, BUT, I've seen 737s do it and do it on occasion myself. The vast woodlands you mention may be an everyday occurence if you're flying in Alaska or Colorado. To not even mention this in a training sylabus is, I think doing a disservice to the student, albeit that there may be an appropriate time to introduce such topics.
As for turn back after EFATO, I think to ban such a thing is missing the point. Try this: Go to altitude and simulate a take off to say 50'. Pull the power back and try a turn and see how far you can get before you fall back to the takeoff altitude. Then try it to 100', 200' and so on. Plot the results and you'll see that as you get higher, your options open up,maybe you can make a 45 degree turn, maybe 60 degrees. Maybe 180 who knows, but your options will get better with altitude. One day, you might have an EFATO and a 20 degree heading change might take you away from an obstacle. Knowing that small turns are viable (though potentially dangerous) would be more useful than thinking you had to land directly ahead no matter what. Think of the airports you've been at that had crossing runways about 30 degrees apart.
Anyway, as I said, you obviously are teaching with the right spirit and take it seriously, that's good to see. I hope I am too.
Disclaimer: Obviously if students want to try this experiment, they should discuss it with their instructors first and have them agree to it and ride along.
Slips can be done at any speed. If you get slow, just roll the nose over a bit. Pitch controls airspeed and amount of x-control controls rate of descent. But you are right about a x-controlled stall resulting in a spin.
You're also right about my enthusiasm for slips stemming from allowing the glideslope to be both lengthened and shortened. I guess I'm saying it's another tool that the pilot can use, and I'm not saying a circuit is a bad method either.
What I am trying to say is that there are many options available and rather than teach rote performances, I think the student will benefit more from being made to think about why these 'rules' were made.
I would probably teach a PPL candidate a circuit type procedure, but would hint of other options that he could use. By the time he graduated, I would have shown him some of them, not to show how good I am, but to make him think. I would want him to become an aviator and not just a pilot.
As for landing downwind: again, I'm talking low wind speeds, because we don't want to overspeed the tyres, BUT, I've seen 737s do it and do it on occasion myself. The vast woodlands you mention may be an everyday occurence if you're flying in Alaska or Colorado. To not even mention this in a training sylabus is, I think doing a disservice to the student, albeit that there may be an appropriate time to introduce such topics.
As for turn back after EFATO, I think to ban such a thing is missing the point. Try this: Go to altitude and simulate a take off to say 50'. Pull the power back and try a turn and see how far you can get before you fall back to the takeoff altitude. Then try it to 100', 200' and so on. Plot the results and you'll see that as you get higher, your options open up,maybe you can make a 45 degree turn, maybe 60 degrees. Maybe 180 who knows, but your options will get better with altitude. One day, you might have an EFATO and a 20 degree heading change might take you away from an obstacle. Knowing that small turns are viable (though potentially dangerous) would be more useful than thinking you had to land directly ahead no matter what. Think of the airports you've been at that had crossing runways about 30 degrees apart.
Anyway, as I said, you obviously are teaching with the right spirit and take it seriously, that's good to see. I hope I am too.
Disclaimer: Obviously if students want to try this experiment, they should discuss it with their instructors first and have them agree to it and ride along.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have missed the point about turnbacks, they are 180 turns back to the airfield. The reason they are banned to students is that they kill people. It is judged by Central Flying School (military instructor training school) that they are too dangerous and it is better to take a marginal field ahead. This has proven the case in a couple of incidents I remember where they were tried by instructors after engine failure and the crew were killed.
All instructors I have come across teach turns in EFATO. 30 degrees is normal but I was taught to instruct students to consider up to 60 degrees at reasonable heights. Since a turnback takes certainly over 500 feet for an experienced pilot to complete safely the inexperienced student should be crosswind well before considering a 180-degree turn, from where less turn is required.
Slips can be done at any speed, but you yourself pointed out one reason it is good to be at normal glide speed early, stabilised and trimmed, and there are other good reasons. This is not, however, a very safe speed to be in unbalanced flight for any length of time, especially with flaps extended as you suggest! That is asking for a spin, especially for an inexperienced pilot who is distracted and scared.
You are talking about powered operations downwind. That is a completely different concept, and normal practice. Downwind forced landings should only be used where no other option is available. As I pointed out in most cases (the exceptions are not safe places to be flying single-engine, and should entail specialist training or briefing for those that try, and certainly are not for the inexperienced people we are considering here or relevant to most students I am likely to encounter!) this is at low level, either low level engine failure or a late change of mind. The techniques for this are taught separately as EFATO.
All instructors I have come across teach turns in EFATO. 30 degrees is normal but I was taught to instruct students to consider up to 60 degrees at reasonable heights. Since a turnback takes certainly over 500 feet for an experienced pilot to complete safely the inexperienced student should be crosswind well before considering a 180-degree turn, from where less turn is required.
Slips can be done at any speed, but you yourself pointed out one reason it is good to be at normal glide speed early, stabilised and trimmed, and there are other good reasons. This is not, however, a very safe speed to be in unbalanced flight for any length of time, especially with flaps extended as you suggest! That is asking for a spin, especially for an inexperienced pilot who is distracted and scared.
You are talking about powered operations downwind. That is a completely different concept, and normal practice. Downwind forced landings should only be used where no other option is available. As I pointed out in most cases (the exceptions are not safe places to be flying single-engine, and should entail specialist training or briefing for those that try, and certainly are not for the inexperienced people we are considering here or relevant to most students I am likely to encounter!) this is at low level, either low level engine failure or a late change of mind. The techniques for this are taught separately as EFATO.
Am I the only person disturbed by the fact that all of the PFL discussion above seems to involve rectangular base and finals rather than a constant aspect approach as taught by the RAF, BGA (who should know how to land without an engine) and at-least 2/3 of the QFIs I've flown with.
G
G
I have always been dubious about detailed flight training advice on PPRuNe - though doubtless offered with the best of intentions.
Stick to your ACTUAL instructor who knows both you, the aircraft and the syllabus he/she is working to. Getting a load of other instructors and students to second guess your recollection of events is of questionable value.
You can easily end up being told three different answers to the same question. Instructors will then tend to engage in obtuse detailed discussions about very fine points and principles.
Which is of little use to Joe Student.
Speak in detail about it to your instructor and examiner and maybe the CFI at the school until you have the issues clear in your mind.
WWW
Stick to your ACTUAL instructor who knows both you, the aircraft and the syllabus he/she is working to. Getting a load of other instructors and students to second guess your recollection of events is of questionable value.
You can easily end up being told three different answers to the same question. Instructors will then tend to engage in obtuse detailed discussions about very fine points and principles.
Which is of little use to Joe Student.
Speak in detail about it to your instructor and examiner and maybe the CFI at the school until you have the issues clear in your mind.
WWW
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luckily I have never done a forced landing for real, but given normal sort of PPL flying in Europe or over water, the greatest probability is that you will be over open countryside, so there will normally be a selection of fields to pick from, so the #1 objective should be to land into wind. With a 10-20kt surface wind, this is going to make a huge difference to the energy which needs to be dissipated on contact.
Statistically, there is no different probability of a good field right under you to one being 10 miles away. I reckon most of the time, en-route, one should line the plane up into wind, set up best glide, etc, and then start looking at suitable fields ahead, preferably where there are several similar ones in a line so if you miss one you can go for the next one. And if in a retractable, glide with gear up and drop it only at the last minute (if you want to drop it at all); that gives you more options as to the slope.
As to WHEN an engine is most likely to fail, that's a separate topic. Gross mechanical problems should happen during takeoff, and then you have very few options anyway. Running out of fuel can happen anywhere but.....!!!
Statistically, there is no different probability of a good field right under you to one being 10 miles away. I reckon most of the time, en-route, one should line the plane up into wind, set up best glide, etc, and then start looking at suitable fields ahead, preferably where there are several similar ones in a line so if you miss one you can go for the next one. And if in a retractable, glide with gear up and drop it only at the last minute (if you want to drop it at all); that gives you more options as to the slope.
As to WHEN an engine is most likely to fail, that's a separate topic. Gross mechanical problems should happen during takeoff, and then you have very few options anyway. Running out of fuel can happen anywhere but.....!!!
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
The military are teaching people who are used to an oval circuit. I agree that the constant aspect approach is an excellent technique, but in practice having been lately taught the UK civilian technique for the first time on my FI course it is less different than you might imagine. In the context of the discussion it makes little difference - the aiming point is still 1/3 into the field and it still discourages slipping and encourages landing close to into-wind. The reason I will be teaching the technique I describe here is for standardisation, as it is used at the school where I will be teaching.
Note also that the constant aspect is not the only way taught by the military. It is certainly preferred, where there is enough height fora full high key to low key circuit, or at least to be downwind at 1000ft agl but for some circumstances such as with less height or a good field in a position that 1000ft downwind is not possible a base to final approach certainly is taught.
The military are teaching people who are used to an oval circuit. I agree that the constant aspect approach is an excellent technique, but in practice having been lately taught the UK civilian technique for the first time on my FI course it is less different than you might imagine. In the context of the discussion it makes little difference - the aiming point is still 1/3 into the field and it still discourages slipping and encourages landing close to into-wind. The reason I will be teaching the technique I describe here is for standardisation, as it is used at the school where I will be teaching.
Note also that the constant aspect is not the only way taught by the military. It is certainly preferred, where there is enough height fora full high key to low key circuit, or at least to be downwind at 1000ft agl but for some circumstances such as with less height or a good field in a position that 1000ft downwind is not possible a base to final approach certainly is taught.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns,
Can't disagree at all with what you say about turnbacks. I'm really saying the same thing: that a 180 will probably kill you but you might make 30 or 60 depending on how high you are. The higher you go, the more options you have. I'm just arguing against a "You must land perfectly straight ahead" approach.
I guess we'll just have to differ on slips, though I'll take your point about low time students. However anything that could happen to him by being distracted in a slip can happen through being distracted at low speed. If he stalls it on approach it may well not matter if it spins or not. I don't think the use of flaps in a slip is 'asking for a spin' in fact I have used the technique fairly often. (I'm wandering a little off topic here because we're supposed to be discussing training regimens). Cessna of course recommends against full flaps in a slip and I would obviously concur.
As for downwind operations, sure they're exceptions and you'd normally prefer your student to land into wind, but what I'm really trying to say is I would rather teach the student to think than just to perform.
Genghis
Ironically, they taught us a pattern for landing sailplanes (US), but I think that's just to give students an IAF.
WWW
Excellent advice, though an instructor doesn't necesarilly know everything. I still learn stuff all the time. Having a student read something and discuss it with their instructor might prove useful for both parties.
Students and low time pilots
Do what WWW says, he's right. Don't just rush out and try something because you read here without discussing it with your instructor first. And don't stop learning.
Can't disagree at all with what you say about turnbacks. I'm really saying the same thing: that a 180 will probably kill you but you might make 30 or 60 depending on how high you are. The higher you go, the more options you have. I'm just arguing against a "You must land perfectly straight ahead" approach.
I guess we'll just have to differ on slips, though I'll take your point about low time students. However anything that could happen to him by being distracted in a slip can happen through being distracted at low speed. If he stalls it on approach it may well not matter if it spins or not. I don't think the use of flaps in a slip is 'asking for a spin' in fact I have used the technique fairly often. (I'm wandering a little off topic here because we're supposed to be discussing training regimens). Cessna of course recommends against full flaps in a slip and I would obviously concur.
As for downwind operations, sure they're exceptions and you'd normally prefer your student to land into wind, but what I'm really trying to say is I would rather teach the student to think than just to perform.
Genghis
Ironically, they taught us a pattern for landing sailplanes (US), but I think that's just to give students an IAF.
WWW
Excellent advice, though an instructor doesn't necesarilly know everything. I still learn stuff all the time. Having a student read something and discuss it with their instructor might prove useful for both parties.
Students and low time pilots
Do what WWW says, he's right. Don't just rush out and try something because you read here without discussing it with your instructor first. And don't stop learning.