Forced landing WITH power
 

When I was instructing it was a normal part of our training for studes to learn how to pick a field and to fly timed circuits around it for inspection and then an approach, all assuming poor viz and low cloud. Mutterings on another thread make me suspect that this is not taught by some schools, or that PPLs don't practice it. If you don't know how to do it then it would be a good thing to practice during the next flight with an FI ...

There's a reasonable description of the procedure here: but it doesn't mention timings for poor viz - ask your FI.
Remember that field length can be estimated by flying down it and timing: 1 second equates to 100 feet at 60kt (or 125 feet at 75kt, and so on).

HFD

I still teach ex 17, but actually flying it seems a bit of a waste of time due to the need to fly it well above the heights talked about in the brief. Going down to 100 ft for a low pass over the field will often lead to a rule 5 violation, at least in my (densely populated) part of the world. A low pass at 600 ft just isn't the same. I have sometimes just skipped the flying exercise and just handled it as a ground briefing.

Good tip on timing to estimate the field length.

I learned them a few weeks back, precautionary landings.
Done them at 500 - 600 ft, then properly at the airfield over the runway.

Its not a a forced landing with power, its a precautionary landing..... :O

Bose-x: You are, of course, strictly correct. I plead senility, or perhaps I was still annoyed at the "other" thread.

Dobbin: you don't need much of an open area to do this and, as wood73 did, the final practice can be done near the airfield (but then it's difficult to convince the stude to use timings and not to cheat).

Our standard brief was:

• Pick field and direction: as for FLWOP
• Inspect: fly down intended landing strip at 400-500 ft AGL, note heading, use time to estimate LRA, continue into wind for 30 secs after end of landing area, pick a landmark, fly crosswind for 30 secs, pick a landmark, fly downwind for 60-75 secs, pick a landmark, fly base for 30 secs, turn onto heading, let down to 50-100 ft
• Detailed inspection: as above, climbing to safe height after the inspection until timings say you're back on final approach

Note: use DI to estimate drift allowances on legs.

The message is that, while it's better to keep the field in sight, timings work well enough to be able to find the field if you lose it.

HFD

I have no idea about the UK but in Canada it is a flight test item.
Examiner gives you scenario and you have to pick out a field, depending on scenario you fly a high and low level inspection (time permitting) before attempting to land in the field.

My comment would be that the actual physical maneuver is taught but the decision making process leading to you deciding to put it down in a field could probably be better explored

Hey, dungflinger, you are just as hung up on square circuits as the rest of the noisy bunch.

In the UK anyway, glider circuits ALWAYS fly the diagonal leg. So begin with your downwind, judging the correct angle to your intended field....too high? move out, too low, move in. Then instead of carrying on downwind until you LOOSE SIGHT OF THE FIELD, you cut off the corner. And this way never get disoriented.

In the US, gliders usually share a field with power and need to fit in with the rectangular patterns, fair enough. Here in the UK, every gliding circuit (or pattern if you prefer that term) includes the DIAGONAL LEG. Much safer and works nicely for field landings.

I used to be sitting behind my student, when in the old days square circuits were flown, sending thought waves, dropping hints, and actually getting the leans, losing sight of the landing area, wondering if he was EVER going to turn on to the base leg....the new way makes so much sense. If you don't have to worry about circuit traffic in your field landing practice, try it, guys. It works.

Remember, glider pilots only get one chance to get it right. Going around is seldom an option.

Some of the noisy bunch are quite content with a constant aspect approach.

HFD

All sounds great for the armchair pilot but far removed from reality :ugh:
For a start the pilot maybe in rain 1000 meter vis or less and down at 250 agl with bits of cloud passing under the aircraft ???

Another method is to pass at 100 feet down wind with the landing area on your left and tear drop back onto a final to actually land. Mary talks a lot of sense from her gliding experience.

How are you in reality going to choose landmarks which might vanish in mist or low cloud ( Reality)
It should be a procedure which is controlled and has an element of VMC and IMC built in.
anything less than an IMC procedure built in is asking for trouble because you cannot be assured of good VMC in reality

Pace

Even Heathrow Number 2 Director vectors converging downwind legs with very little straight flight on the base legs...

worrab, is "constant aspect approach" another term for including a diagonal leg and never loosing sight of where you intend to plonk the aircraft? I believe this is taught in the RAF....correct me if not the case.

As far as HFD's directions for timings, etc, 30 seconds here, 40 seconds there, that to my mind is VERY CONFUSING. That would clutter up my brain at a time I need to be looking ahead and thinking and estimating present position, wind drift, height, angle. As soon as you throw in prescribed timings, you are making something complicated that is really fairly simple. Has he ever done any approaches in a glider, I wonder? and how long ago?

I used to ask my students, What is the difference between flying a circuit at the gliding club or flying a circuit into a farmer's field? and the student would faff about naming all the possibilities. The answer is, There is No Difference Except you Don't Have to worry about the Traffic. So every gliding circuit even at the home field where you have a rough idea of your height relative to your position, is a practice field landing.

Having chosen the reference point, is it moving up the canopy? You are undershooting, put the airbrakes away. Is it moving down the canopy? overshooting. More airbrakes. (some call them spoilers. They do NOT slow you down, they simply increase or reduce the rate of descent. Excellent device for accurate touchdowns.

A (UK?) glider approach has a diagonal towards the end of the downwind and onto a base followed by a turn onto final and a straight approach. If you imagine being somewhat lazy, the turns will be less pronounced and the straight bits rather curved until everything's merged into a single turn from the end of the downwind onto the runway threshold. I believe the RAF teach the curved approach method ab initio.

Pace,
A good reason for conducting a Precautionary Landing would be if a pilot was completely lost (especially with night and or bad weather approaching)

If, as you suggest, they are already completely in it " in rain 1000 meter vis or less and down at 250 agl with bits of cloud passing under the aircraft" I would call this a Forced Landing (due Wx) with power available to adjust the approach.

mary,
A "constant aspect approach" would involve flying a curve from downwind to just above the "threshold" - I am not sure a "diagonal" comes in to it.
Generally, I would suggest, some timing does come in to it (ie 10 seconds from the downwind point to commencing the curve) in order to more easily place the aircraft at 100' to 200' on short final (particularly with high wing aircraft) to give time for small adjustments to the last part of the approach before landing.

Dungflinger, Mary I like that. Very clevr.

The other thread, agreed, had lost track, but the comment of 5k viz, with broken clag at 400'feet agl, is doable, is total rubbish.

Can I suggest that a lot of posters/pilots have a great sense of selective amnesia. Has anyone recently tried to find a grass strip, scud running at 400, in crap? It is very, no nigh, impossible, unless you know the lie of the land extremely well. Even then, the visual difference between 400-500-600-700-800, differs enormously. The whole visual perspective changes with every 100 feet vertical, and then add in 2 miles a minute horizontally. Tough, very tough. Add blind panic in, then the situation becomes very difficult.

I agree entirely that much more training has to be done, if only to appreciate the very different visual perspectives at low level.

Well, if weather related, yes, though if mechanical, fire, etc. there could be a forced landing with power, I've done a couple.

Forced, or precautionary, the implication is that it's a landing in a place not originally planned, and it's probably a rushed, stressed decision, under deteriorating circumstances. And... aside from the mechanical/fire reason, most pilots have probably waited too long, so it's worse.

If weather caused, there's some chance that you've run up against very poor weather on at least one "side". This could seriously restrict the maneuvering space, so a "normal" circuit will not be possible, and attempting it a bad idea. A part of the practice of forced/precautionary approaches is selecting the landing spot, and setting up your own approach.

It is vital to practice these skills in a training environment. When the aircraft traffic permits (things are very quiet), students should be given short circuit, restricted maneuvering landing scenarios. Another critical aspect, is that once, with partial power, you have decided to land, do not change that decision if the power returns, fulfill your plan, that surge may not last long...

Dobbin1
 

Quite why will a precautionry landing practice end in a Rule 5 violation ? Parts of West Sussex are very rural.

Precautionaries vs. Landing Out
 

Having done 8 landouts (others have done multiples more) it's a whole bunch simpler than all the folderol involved with a precautionary, which I have demonstrated to at least two examiners.

The power folks have overcomplicated forced and precautionary procedures which will inevitably be conducted under pressure.

There's so much stuff to remember that many incident pilots will be beating their brains for any missed bits of the procedure when the primary focus needs to be getting the a/c to the best available patch of ground at the right airspeed. Everything else is optional.

Generally as Mary said well, a landout circuit is the same as a circuit at the home field.

Sometimes you have several minutes. I remember spending close to an hour over a field before I was able to leave.

Other times you have to make a swift decision, especially if you suddenly find yourself lower than you really should be either because of sink:{, altimeter overreading because of pressure change from a frontal passage:mad:, or overoptimistic glide computer indications:}

Interestingly such situations commonly arise when you can't quite make it back to the field or intended runway. Much better a good approach to the field or runway you can make than trying to reach one you can't;)

I am doing prec search and land this Friday as part of my training (in Aus). My understanding is we do it at the airstrip so its legal.

Re Forced landings, I have already done that. It is done in the training area and you are taught how to pick a suitable landing area and the tricks to make it a successful land. Once at 500' (on final) you know damn well if you are too low/high and if it will be a successful land.

As a student now, when coming into land from the training area I always do a normal approach with a touch and go, then go around to do a simulated forced land or a flapless approach etc. Keeps the skills up. After friday, I will also add in a prec search and land to that process.

I quite understand why early training has to be conservative with respect to practice height for a PSL but the reality is that 500' AGL really isn't good enough. It's much better than nothing, but there are any number of things that can kick in below that point; these all require practice in energy management, to use a contemporary phrase.

My flying background has not been exceptional but I think that some gliding experience, plus landing a variety of aircraft in off-airport landings (mostly planned!), has helped develop some useful skills. I completely agree with a number of posters who point out that, in challenging circumstances, the battle is - and should be - more mental (including decision making) than procedural.

I guess it's tough in areas of high population density but I've often found that instructors in rural parts of Australia have PSL-friendly paddocks and beaches allocated, or strips that are strips in name only. With the right owner permission arrangements in place, these are invaluable to the pilot who wants some help in going beyond the basics. Like all flying, messing up can ruin your day, but a total fear of planting a typical SEP spam-can in e.g. a good paddock is misplaced.

It's still a precautionary landing, excercise 17.....:ok:

Whatever we call it ............ its the same thing
 

It seems to me that this precautioary landing is because pilots are forced into the situation so what we call it is not the issue.

The bigest problem is that most pilots dont use the option until they are totaly backed into a corner and wait until it has to be done RIGHT NOW.

This is when the trouble starts and it becomes less and less like EX17 (not the one that some places teach down to 500ft) and more like a panic measure.

No one landing like this is going to be quite like another so a wide range of courses of action need considering, Much like what is happening on this thread but this has to be done in the cold light of day, not when backed into a corner.

Those who teach Ex17 down to 500 ft and then just tick the boxes on the student training record are just ripping the student off and setting the student up for an accident rather than an inccident should the student subsequently be backed into a corner as well as making life more dangerous for those on the ground.
There are undoubtedly occations when a student selects a field that will result in a 500 ft rule infringment and that practice has to be discontinued. This does not represent a satisfactory completion of EX17, it just indicates that it will have to be repeated until the student demonstrates the ability to perform to the required standard.

Just out of curiosity, if you do have to perform a forced landing in a field somewhere for weather or another reason, what do you do afterwards?

Can you take off from the same field when the weather is better or do you have to get the plane out by road? Can all planes have their wings removed etc for this purpose?

Forgive me if its a daft question.

Depends whose plane it is. Where I rent the flying order book says "phone the club and tell them you've landed in a field; in due course a decision will be made as to whether the aircraft can be flown out by an instructor".

So there's nothing "regulation wise" stopping you from flying out of a random field? I assumed that you could only fly out of designated "airfields".

Would you need to inform the CAA of your intent to take off?

So is there anything to stop a farmer buying his own plane and regularly flying out of his field?

Apologies for all the questions!

You may upset the neighbours, you may upset the planning authorities if they think that a field has magically become an aerodrome, you may upset passers by who thought you'd crashed and you may upset the livestock.

On the other hand, tens (hundreds?) of farmers in the UK do land and take off perfectly legally from their own land without telling anyone.

I don't know why but i think that's great!

Maybe it's because when you're learning to fly, everything seems so restrictive/prohibitively expensive that you just assume there would be some massive red tape or cost stopping you from doing this.

Sorry for hijacking the thread! Thanks!

Most GA types have wings which can be removed with modest work, though there will be more effort to reinstall and rig them. Cherokee types are more likely to suffer damage during this work than strut braced Cessnas. There are a few types I know of, for which removing the wings is not possible = problem. An off airport landing has been more successful if that place affords a takeoff path.

One of the challenges of off airport landing place selection will be that in other than dead flat countryside, the surface you've picked will be not as flat on final approach, as it appeared to be from above. That will mean a more challenging landing, and greater risk that that nice field you picked from above, and landed in, is not suitable for a takeoff at all.

Sometimes a whole aircraft can be taken by road to a place where a takeoff is possible, or it could be slung out by helicopter. The only time I have forced landed into a field from which I could not takeoff, with a bit of fence fiddling, I was able to tow the aircraft to a field from which I could takeoff safely. Only time, no cost :)

In any case, this is why it's really good to not leave this until the last opportunity. The early decision that you cannot continue gives more choice of landing sites, and more opportunity to validate their suitability, or better, just to divert to a different aerodrome! Early awareness means more time to deal with the situation, and better choices.

When I was doing EASA Part.FCL PPL this kind of precautionary landings was part of the training and we did quite some of them. Procedure was as described, fly a simulated rectangular pattern and let down to 50-100ft. If I remember correctly, you had to present a FI signoff for at least 3(?) of them to qualify for exam. There was a standardized report on board, where the FI filled in location and time for recording the violations of § something go below minimum height. I don't know wether this changed with the ATO thing, but it was a regular exercise when I learned and they told us it would be allowed even later for training purposes, as long as it is proper documented. Some of the §§§ guys around, is this still true?

I asked this in the other thread and ask again now!

Has anyone ever landed a Group A (or whatever they are called now) aeroplane in a field due to bad weather? Or heard of anyone who has? Well? In many years, Ive never heard of anyone doing it.

There is not an unsubstantial risk involved both with the landing and any subsequent take off. Therefore I would expect to see some accident reports. There are none, that I know of.

Maybe one ought to be asking why pilots appear to avoid it, possibly at any costs. I assume they try to get to an airfield, sometimes with tragic consequences.

So lets try and find out why, few if any, pilots actually go ahead and carry out a forced landing with power in a field?

I do not include helos, gliders, or microlights in this discussion.

Chickenhouse
 

The UK CAA has made it clear that it will not support a prosecution of a flying instructor under Rule 5 (500 ft rule) if the instructor is carrying out training of forced landings (with ot without power) as long as resonable care has been taken to not infringe rule 5.

So I see this being if you fly less than 500 ft from a farm house you will get busted, if you fly nearer that 500 ft to some walkers who had been hidden by a hedge while approaching an otherwise empty field you will not get busted.

This was as a result of a failed prosecution of a flying instructor who was carrying EAFTO training. Any wise instructor will keep a record of this training just incase a low flying complaint is made.

UV I have known it to happen, if you get it right you just fly the aircraft out of the field so no need for any fuss, after all most grass airfields are just fields that people put the word "air" in front of to tell you that aircraft regularly use it.

The Takeoff is more Problematic than the Landing
 

A considerable number of aircraft that were successfully landed in fields or roads have been written off in the subsequent takeoff.

At a nearby field a pilot landed after it turned out his fuel calculations were a bit short.

He snagged his gear on the fence taking off:=

Farmers can mow a takeoff lane and take down fences and posts once compensation is agreed, usually at a price well below the cost of dismantling and putting things back together;)

I know of one 16m glider that was pushed out of a field and 2 miles down a gravel road.

A Pa28-161 rented from Highland Flying Services was landed by a PPL on the beach near Fort William due to weather, and flown out by the CFI with no damage.
A Pa28 touring from England was landed in a field SW of Inverness, due to weather, and successfully flown out by the pilot when weather improved.

The emphasis in training seems to be on a procedure, rather than a successful landing, whether with or without power. A friend who didn't do his SEP paperwork in time, and had to sit a test, was given a PFL. He positioned to land on a microlight strip, to a certainty of success, but was failed as he did not fly a circuit.
As regards choosing a field, in my home area, at present, I cannot predict the softness of grass/stubble fields until my boot sinks in.

I have certainly landed in a few "rough strips", lakes (seaplane) and frozen lakes I knew, on both wheels and skis to prevent having to fly onward into deteriorating or unknown weather. I once landed an ultralight in a field due to fog enroute. But I do avoid unknown surfaces/areas for no good reason, and so far so good.

Those darn walkers, what nerve! I can just picture the Monty Python skit of walkers springing out of the hedge to take note of registrations of unsuspecting low flying planes [or galleons]!

No, no, no. They would be Cardinals. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Here's some forced landings that were successful

Happy End: photographs of miraculous aeroplane crashes where everyone survived - Telegraph

NZ has designated Low Flying Zones, where flight below 500 feet is legal under certain conditions, namely dual instruction.

I don't know anyone personally who has landed in a field because of bad weather/deteriorating light etc, but I did land once when our engine ran rough because of water in one of the tanks. Fortunately we were high enough to be within gliding distance of a nearby airfield so I landed there.

Try landing a Boeing in a short field.....
 

In October, 1960, a Pan American Boeing 707 landed at Northolt, instead of Heathrow, by mistake.....was looking out for the gasometer landmark and got muddled up a bit. Managed to stop before hitting the far hedge...

They had to unload EVERYTHING to fly it out the next day...with a different pilot. But didn't have to take the wings off....

Dunnit two times. First was my first longer mountain flight, clouds came down and down until I found myself in a valley with all hill tops in clouds, so I circled and landed at a small wet cow meadow of a farm (the only place to let down). The farmer took me by tractor to my destination airfield, was only about 3 miles behind the hills and next day I took off again in blue sky and after a fabulous breakfast at the farmers house. He became a very good friend of mine. Second time I was x-country with blue skies prognosis when a cold front mangled weather laundry and carb icing over a lake in 1.000ft forced me to land at nearest possible gras. I spent the night in the tent I had and took off next morning without seeing anybody.

When I did a flight test to obtain a NZ licence on the strength of my Canadian one, I did practice forced landings with and without power down to 50' in the Tauranga LFZ. My instructor also had me doing steep turns at 200', partly over the sea and partly over land (with 50' trees :eek: ).

Low-flying and decision making in simulated poor visibility is a requirement in NZ for PPL issue and BFRs:

http://www.caa.govt.nz/pilots/Instru..._PPL_RPL_A.pdf

That's waaaaay too far about the trees for some approaches into "interesting" lakes! Would expect NZ training to be more into bush flying than that :-)