One problem with not going below 500ft, is that you don't get to see the effect on your height of slowing from best glide speed to landing speed. It can save a lot of height, and wind up leaving you too high, unless it's a huge field.

Admitedly FD is right in saying that if you practice glide approaches at the airfield, you will get used to this, however many busy fields don't like people doing glide approaches in their busy circuit.

People seem to be favouring the constant approach method here. I was thought the square circuits method, and never shown a constant aspect approach. Would someone mind explaining exactly what a constant aspect approach is? I have a rough idea, but aren't too sure what exactly it is!

Thanks
dp

Surely this is all about doing what you’re used to. If you generally do a constant aspect approach to land when the engine is working then do one when the engine stops. Seeing as I fly out of an airfield where the standard circuit is a rectangular circuit, I fly (and teach) a base leg and final approach into a field. The point being is that I know what it should look like because I’ve done that type of approach many times before.

IMHO an engine failure should be treated as follows:

1) Immediately select carb heat (if appropriate)
2) Establish best glide speed
3) Make a plan, i.e. select field taking into account size, shape, slope, surface, wind direction undershoot and overshoot, inhabitation etc, and then select a 1000 foot point (a point where you should be at 1000 ft on a base leg into the field)
4) Do the WHY checks. Fuel on (change tanks if appropriate), (carb heat check on), fuel pump on, mags on both, mixture rich, exercise throttle, try starter.
5) If the engine doesn’t start, call Mayday.
6) Fly to the 1000 ft point (doesn’t matter how, as long as you get there)
7) Now comes the judgement. Aim to land half way down the field, too high, fly through the extended centreline, too low, cut the corner. Use flaps as necessary to move the aiming point back towards the field boundary.
8) Perform the shutdown checks, remembering that if the flaps are electric then don’t switch the master off until sure that no more flap extension is required.
9) Brief yourself (and pax) to tighten straps, brace etc. Unlatch door/hatch
10) Use short field landing technique, a higher than normal vertical speed on landing will help remove the kinetic energy. Keep weight off nose for as long as possible.
11) Evacuate as quickly as possible, taking the first aid kit and fire extinguisher with you.
12) Telephone police and/or ATC with the news.

As I value my licence, I tend to perform a GA just above 500’agl, however by then I know whether we’d have made it or not.

I’m not saying everyone should do it like this, it’s horses for courses. As long as your technique gets you down alive, then it’s been successful.

Slim,

I never said never!

There is a difference between being shown what it all looks like when you go down below 500ft and what you do for recurrent training.

For a ME rating you do an engine shutdown and restart. When you are au fait with that you continue the rest of the training by flying with zero thrust after identifying and securing the 'dead' engine.

In a similar vein I think you can meaningfully train FLs between the altitude you have your simulated engine failure and 500ft.

If you do PFLs as often as I think is necessary to be proficient you will know whether you are in the groove by 500ft.

Not sure why you think flying a taildragger will make you better at doing a FL. See what you say about grass fields and people's lack of acquaintance with them. We had a thread not so long ago making that very obvious.

FD

I think FD we are destined to disagree - I believe that perspective, rotor, judgement of position and flare point, all require practice, which is best done under 100ft and certainly under 500ft. However, presumably neither of us have ever damaged an aircraft after an engine failure (courtesy of my strange hobby of test flying homebuilts I'm up to 6 - although admittedly five were restarted in the air) - so we must be doing something right.


Anyhow, Dublinpilot asked about a constant aspect approach. This is best demonstrated in the air, or at-least with diagrams. However I'll give it a go.

Identify your "runway" and aiming point - the latter is generally around 1/3 into the runway. Flying at whatever speed works (approach speed if onto an airfield or your field is close in, best glide initially if not). Obviously the aiming point needs to be reachable, but heading is optional, except in the circuit, when you want to start at the end of downwind.

Now adjust power to descend (or in a PFL, or glide approach, close the throttle) keep turning towards that point - keeping it's slant angle constant below the horizontal. Keep turning - adjusting the bank angle to keep that angle (aspect) constant. You should be aiming to roll out at a couple of hundred feet, on the runway heading. Now re-adjust to approach speed, and you should touch down near the start of your "runway" a little before your original aiming point.

If anybody can point to a website with pictures, it would probably help everybody - it's not a subject that lends itself to words only.

G

N.B. Snigs
It's MSD, not AGL in this country.

Genghis, yes I know :) , but you never know where the NIMBY is hiding with his binoculars and a note pad. So I use 500ft to be safe whatever!!

pfls
 

Some years ago I was an AFI and over the inevitable cup of tea I asked a newish student what his first thoughts would be on an engine failure. Time came and went, I grew a beard, I got another dog and eventauly he came up with "Well someones responsible for this engine failure!" In other words he was working out who to sue! Needless to say I suggested he flew elsewhere!

G,

I can only lay claim to 3 engine failures but have a fair bit of experience in off airport landings.

Off course they do, but they are essentially the same whether you land at an airfield, grass strip or in an unprepared piece of land for a FL.

Unless I missed something.

So far not broken anything with off field landings.

FD

Ah, FD, but the reason you don't go around shutting down perfectly good engines on a twin is because it's an inherently dangerous thing to do! In the perfect world all emergency training in all twins would be done in a proper simulator, as required in the States if you want to get twin insurance you can afford. Going down to 50ft, no real problem, as long as you don't shut it all down for real.

Sorry for missing the other thread, I drift in and out, and every time I am foolish enough to post on here I am 100% secure in the knowledge that it's been said before :), and probably recently.

I think taildraggers don't nose over as easily as a tricycle, so are safer in those ugly places you have to land out of necessity as opposed to choice. I have no figures to back me up, but it just feels right to say it...

Unless I have missed something, everyone is talking about the procedures they fly. As an ex gliding instructor my main comsideration is "is there a suitable field available". There is a site that shows what crops look like from the air and unless you have extremely good eye-sight is virtually impossible to see how high crops are and the condition of the field until you are vitually on top of them.
I recently did some flying in Maine in the US,the state seems to consist mainly of trees , a few fields, some water and roads. An engine failure there would have been most interesting, as it would be anywhere there was not "a suitable field".

may the force be with you.
Mike

And your point is?

Of course you can get caught out by having chosen a wrong field.

However if you come to that conclusion at 500ft you are going to be stuffed and best make sure you go into whatever it is, controlled and at minimum speed.

Changing fields this low would end up in tears.

Whereas it is reasonable to expect to be able to retrieve a glider without any damage I think that the stakes are a bit different when you have a FL in an aeroplane. The aim has to be to survive the FL, anything more than that is a bonus.

Experienced glider pilots will choose areas with suitable fields when the going gets less comfortable whereas aeroplane pilots potter along at 1500-2500 ft typically and will get caught out when the engine stops.

By the time they have set the plane up for best glide etc there will be only little time and altitude left to look for a 'perfect field'

FD

FD you answered in 2

a) Probably below 500ft before you see/recognise the problem

b) It is better to go through the far hedge/wall at 10 knots rather than hit the first at 60.

Genghis,

The figure of 8 holding pattern works for all aircraft from a microlight to a B747. In fact if you ever end up gliding a B747 and have suficient height, then that is the hold that ATC will put you in at about 6nm on final approach.

====------8--

Look at the above diagram of a centerline and a figure 8 hold. At each end, the aircraft turns towards the landing area thus the aircraft never turns away from the field runway or whatever it plans to land on. (stretch the 8 slightly in the middle!!)

Having arrived at a suitable distance on "final" with height to spare, one simply completes as much or as many of the above holds as are required to burn off the excess height until the pilot judges that it is time to fly directly in and land.

In the case of the B747 as I said it works great as 6 to 8nm but on a microlight about 200 to 500m would be more appropriate.

As for "straight in", I think you misunderstand me. I always advocate an overhead join in the normal circuit unless ATC can give better. However, I was making a reference to making a "final approach" to a farmers field in the case of an engine failure. To clarify what I tries to get across was that if it is possible to land in a field straight ahead easily and safely then why create work by making up some pattern to land in a field under the aircraft!

You do however lead me on to a very good point. Pilots display appaling lookout for traffic during the engine failure procedure. In class EF and G, there can be plenty of flights who don't know you have an engine failure and it is a shame to end a perfectly good forced landing by coliding with a low level military aircraft!!

Yes, I do teach that during low level, there should never be a situation where there is no forced landing option available. However, I have come across plently of PPLs who will do a lovely PFL into a field with a great big forrest at the end and who are totally oblivious to the low level turbulence caused or the absence of any open space should the donkey quit during the climbout.

Side-slip, flap or a combination of both as appropriate is the best way to loose height. If in a position on final where that won't work then the figure of 8 hold ( or part of it) is appropriate. The problem with S turns is that one is progressing towards both the ground and the landing area and if one can not squeze enough turns in to get off the height, one is faced with an ever increasing desperate attempt to do ever tighter turns and longer excursions to each side of final and can at times end up with a steep low speed 90 deg final turn over the hedge.

Hope that answers your questions.

Regards,

DFC

I am a relatively low-hours ppl and would like to practise glide approaches, but my home airfield is quite busy.

I was wondering if it would be legal for me to go to a nearby airfield that is closed in the evening and practice glide approaches. If I do touch-and-go's, I shouldn't have to worry about rule 5, should I?

In principle there is nothing wrong with that but you would be best contact the airfield where you want to do that.

Some are not open to non residents after hours and some do not allow circuits when the airfield is 'closed'

Good plan though to practice this elsewehere if your homefield is busy.

FD

carbar - You are only exempted from rule 5 when taking off or landing at a government or licensed aerodrome. If an airfield is closed, then it does not - that that time - have a licence. Therefore rule 5 applies. What does apply also is that you can't do a planned landing or take-off without the landowners permission - otherwise you are committing trespass. So, do talk to them as FD says.


DFC - Thanks for that, not quite sure how in 15 years of flying that had passed me by up to now. I shall have a play and get a feel for it.

G

On the subject of the figure of eight turns, it is important to maintain speed in the turns. You don't want to end up doing too many and then getting too low, then having to stretch the glide.

There was a lot of correspondence about the dangers of too many turns. It can be unsettling when under stress and you can lose focus. Why not use sideslip?

Like most xc glider pilots although we don't want to land out, we are always looking for suitable areas. I still remember (and use) the lessons from Bronze C days - when operating below your 'comfort' level always keep close to the good fields.

In power, I am often astonished at the low levels pilots fly at given their appalling glide performance - similarly how far back their turn to finals happens.

Just to clarify -

Assuming that I had spoken to the airfield's owner and had been given permission to do so, and given that the airfield would be unlicenced (because it is outside its operating hours)

1) I would be allowed to practise glide approaches down to touch-and-go and would be exempted from the '500 ft' rule because I am "landing in accordance with normal aviation practice".

2) However, I would not be exempted from the '1500 ft' rule, so I would have to climb out to greater than 1500 ft if I wanted to circle around to try again.

Carbar

Rule 5 is not applicable in any landing/take off, irrespective of whether the field is licensed or not.

The 1500ft rule does not apply at licensed airfields and, as of this year, permit aircraft can now land/TO at licensed airfields where flight over congested areas is required.

I'm sure that's what G meant to say, too.

The draft ammendments to Rule 5 list PFLs as being an exception too.

Here's the field landing website....

http://www.field-landings.co.uk/

Nothing to add to this discussion other than a lot of the gliding accident reports pertaining to field landings usually contain the phrase "late field selection".

One of the rules of thumb I was trained with was start looking for a field at 1500 to 2000ft, pick one by 1000ft and local soar it, and if you get to 700ft start a circuit and land. Altitudes all judged by eye as well. With a sink rate of 200 ft/min, that means you know where you are going to land about 5 mins before getting there. Never had to do this for real mind.....

Cheers
John

At times like this, it's best to look up rule 5 (which is about 2 pages long, and includes both the 500ft and 1500ft rules). So I have.

The 500ft rule is in rule 5(1)(e)

The exceptions to the 500ft rule are in rule 5(2)(d), part (i) of which says "any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice".

So the 500ft rule doesn't apply when taking off or landing anywhere - just as Barshaker says.



It is indeed the 1500ft rule (Rule 5(1)(a)) that an aerodrome license gets you off, which is the requirement not to fly less than 1500ft above the highest fixed object within 600m AND able to glide clear (and for permit aircraft, there's an added requirement not to fly over any built up area). But it does still apply when there's no licence, or anywhere outside of the normal circuit. The exceptions are in rule 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b)

G