Mike

Was your real deal forced landing self induced? Abrupt or partial leading to full or precautionary landing ?

Pace

Ok, moving on to your point:

Pace how can two things be the same if one is worse than the other. By definition they must be different and therefore require different skills or thought processes to deal with?

What you say about the different considerations re a partial is good and I thank you for causing me to think it through. That said I remain of the opinion, and it is only opinion, that a partail will more often than not result in a better outcome than had it been total failure.

BB

The ignition system of my Rotax 912 80 hp [Flat four cyl. FOUR stroke] Rans S6 mysteriously packed up after running a bit rough.

Radio'd the local a/field who I was on listening watch with. They offered me a glide in but from 2,000 ft. I knew it wasn't near enough. Spotted a large enough field approx. same size (like they say) as my base strip and windmill glided in without bending it onto a rather rough tussocky surface.

Agreed it's not a quick a/c so relatively easy to get her in compared with many types discussed above. [Couldn't find anything wrong & flew out a while later].
It took over a year of step by step investigation of all the usual suspects to get rid of the occasional rough running which we now believe was caused by carbon/soot build up inside from running a bit too rich at partial, therefore cruise, throttle for some years before I bought the 'plane. One cylinder suspiciously had lowish compression.

A new Bing carb. needle and its jet, eventually did the trick. This Spring a couple of EGT probes were installed to ease my mind on mix effects. Running it harder 4,900 - 5,000 rpm as recommended by the Rotax forum 'guru' seems to have helped too & (possibly) burnt off any imagined deposits.
Nowadays all four compressions are excellent and the English Channel crossed x4.

mike hallam.

Just to make it perfectly clear all of my comments regarding the probability of failures reflect the situation for Lycoming/Continental/Franklin engines in certified aircraft, or the engine that is in what I think are the aircraft that the vast majority of the readers of this forum flying.

My comments do not apply to ultralight aircraft, especially those with 2 stroke engines as these types seem to have many more instances of mechanically induced engine failures then traditional certified engines. I have had 4 students of mine go on to fly 2 stroke powered ultralights and every single one has had a total in flight engine failure that was not caused by something they did.

For this reason when asked I do not recommend that my students fly 2 stroke powered aircraft and if they do they make a point of always being in gliding distance of a survivable landing area.

One maybe worse but then the partial can become worse than the full :E
Take the Biggin crash? The pilot had a partial and could have used that partial to have controlled his descent to a field landing.
he must have considered that the partial power would take him back to an on airport landing a better situation on the face of it than landing in a field.
In that situation what appeared as a better option quickly deteriorated to a worse option with the result that the pilot crashed and was killed.

In both situations you have an engine problem and in the partial unless its fixable as BPF says pilot induced you will not really know the outcome.
With the full failure at least you can put your full focus to the forced landing as one way or another you are going to arrive back on terra firma,

With more options you have more choices with more choices you have the option to make the wrong choice :=

BTW I did add the word ALMOST := To the statement of your above

Pace

Pace, I think you and I are just wired differently! It's not that I disagree with your points of view, it's more the tangents that confuse me. Yes I know, I'm easily confused.

Out of curiosity do you fly SEP for pleasure, or do you only fly Citation these days?

BB

BB

Sadly only Citations at present although this year has been busy. Have a Ferry in a Citation 5 next friday to Dallas if you want to come :E

Missing the piston twins and singles so will soon add more options to my decision making by taking time on a Cirrus ;) Another aircraft I took to pieces in the forums:E Fuji and 007Heli who has promised me a flight with him :ok: both converted me to the benefits of the chute in those discussions.

Pace

The original topic was picking fields.

As an ex-mil helicopter pilot, I've had a lot of experience of routine landings in fields. It's really not a good idea to ever pick a brown field. A brown field will have been ploughed and will be much softer than others around it so the likelihood of an aircraft nose-over is increased, especially if you land across the furrows.

I used to instruct on the Bulldog. In that aircraft (and many other low-wingers with a sliding canopy), if the aircraft ends up on its back you will possibly be unable to escape without outside assistance, which may not be forthcoming in time if the aircraft goes on fire. The RAF latterly equipped the Bulldog with a pathetic little belt cutter/escape hammer, but I'm not certain that the hammer would be effective in breaking the canopy. Even then, if you broke the canopy, the aircraft would possibly fall on you!

I wouldn't let any of my students even practice PFLs to ploughed fields, in case the engine didn't pick up for the go-around and we ended up in there for real.

My best friend, another RAF QFI, died in a Bulldog forced landing, btw. The aircraft stayed upright but a very poor choice of field resulted in a very severe impact which he didn't survive.

Of the top of my head I can't think of one accident report I have seen where in an other wise survivable crash and where the aircraft ended up upside down the inability of the occupants to exit the aircraft was a significant factor. I would suggest that that is not a good enough reason to not pick a brown field.

The club where I teach recently had an aircraft destroyed in a crash. The cause was poor pilot decision making on the part of a pilot on a hot, high, max weight takeoff. The one thing the pilot did do right when the aircraft stopped climbing and the ill advised turn back wasn't working was to smash the aircraft into the ground in the middle of a plowed field at 80 + kts rather then let it float down the field in ground effect and hit the thick forest of trees at the end of the field while still in the air. In this case the nose wheel broke off and the firewall dug in to the dirt stopping the aircraft upright after a run if about 100 feet. Everybody walked away.

The problem with advice like "never pick a brown field" is that it encourages "paralysis by analyses" particularly with low time pilots. I have seen many instances with PFL's that started out OK but went pear shaped because by the time the student picked a field the aircraft was already so low they were not in a good position.

Re your friends fatal Bulldog accident, what caused the engine failure ?

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it is always better to have some power (which is the more probable case) then no power at all. You may elect not to use the power available, For instance in the case of an low level EFATO where the best course of action is to cut the power and land straight ahead, but choice is always better then no choice IMO.

The challenge is how to make the right choices and that I think goes back to my point about how "engine failures" are taught in flight schools misses a priceless opportunity to practice making some of those choices.

How many new PPL's know the minimum power setting required to maintain level flight ? Any power above that and you don't have an engine failure you have an entirely different problem, one that again is virtually never explored in flight training.

The saddest accident I personally know about was a C 172 that crashed after an engine failure in very inhospitable terrain. The airplane was destroyed and everyone badly injured, one with permanent life altering injuries.

It turned out the left tank had no fuel but the right tank had 10 gals, with the fuel selector still in the left position. Simply turning the fuel selector to both would have restored engine power yet that never happened.

I think a major reason was that the his flying instructor told him to get the cause check done as quickly as possible so he could concentrate on flying the PFL manoever. Therefore while training for his PPL, given the PFL exercise he just mindlessly verbally rattled off the cause check items as quickly as possible. After all he knew it wasn't going to make any difference as the engine was going to stay failed.

Therefore when the engine stopped for real, under stress he defaulted to what was presented as the "most important part" of the PFL, flying the manoever so the cause check which would have prevented the crash was never actioned.....

I like to think this scenario could not happen to one of my students because I won't let the PFL manoever continue if a good effective cause check is not carried out. This involves looking and physically touching the appropriate controls while calling out the actions in a measured manner. To keep thing interesting, on some PFL's, after the student has actioned the cause checks I give them the engine back at some partial power setting and ask them "what now".:E

Obviously you still have to have and practice the skills to safely crash the aircraft after an engine failure, but I wonder over the years how many aircraft have wound up wrecked in a field when effective pilot actions could have restored power ?

You go for the brown fields, I prefer to avoid them thanks, personal choice.

My friend's aircraft was so badly disrupted that no definite cause for the engine failure was found. However, the BOI determined that the most likely cause was a fuel starvation caused by a leak at a pipe union to the fuel filter. In his case, all the fields were very small.

Big Pistons

My friend landed in a brown field in a Pitts - she was a really experienced pilot and the reasons for the engine failure were definitely not pilot induced.

The aircraft very rapidly pitched inverted and she was very lucky to escape thanks entirely to very quick assistance. To be fair the aircraft thank goodness did not catch fire and perhaps had she remained trapped (and she was quite badly injured) she may well have survived until her eventual rescue. Never the less she was very surprised how easily the aircraft pitched over form what was otherwise a well executed and managed forced landing.

Most aircraft will not fair well landing in a ploughed field especially if it is wet, the deceleration will be rapid and the G loads significant.

Still, if it is the only option, it is probably the best option.

Pace BTW today I am moving our Cirrus to Biggin Hill for better utility as our grass is so unreliable in the winter, so send me a few December dates that suit you.

Having more or less caught up with this thread a few observations below have reinforced my personal beliefs of if you have a chute - USE IT:

1) Choice of field is very difficult from the air, especially when under pressure, surface is very difficult to judge.

2) Higher landing speed type aircraft are worse with significantly increased inertia.

3) Very Experienced guys die and can be severely injured in off airport landings / crashes. To a degree the outcome is a lottery and sure experience helps hopefully make the best choice and improve chances of a good outcome but it still ends up a lottery.

4) Some argue more choice is good, some argue more choice can be bad, I personally have made my choice before taking off.

5) Partial engine failure is more likely than immediate failure and this situation needs to be calmly managed and diagnosed up to the point of a decision to continue, attempt a landing, or a CAPS pull.

6) Fuel management is vital yet some still die for not being able to do this.

My view has changed in the last months in one area and that is when winds on the ground are believed to be at 30 knots plus then I will consider a traditional forced landing into wind.

PFL's
 

This thread is only confirming the problem that a low hour PPL has in dealing with a 'real' emergency.
Unlike the military that 'practice' this all the time the civil PPl has to be able to 'do his best' in the circumstances at the time.
His best insurance is BEING AWARE, and that although unlikely it is possible and therefore having a simple game plan 'tucked in his mind' will serve him well.
This has to be based on being at a relatively low altitude, and a possible low annual flying time.
The priority is maintaining control,and focussing on flying the machine down to the best approach. With the luxury of height there is the chance of a quick fuel appraisal before turning it off,but then the 'air restart' situation (probably never ever practiced) for a non aerobatic pilot will take time, and this is when you can start to loose control of the situation.
You have to decide on a system that suits YOU and make it as simple as possible.

Gliders can go with: Land in the dirt, you won't get hurt. In one sandy loam field my landing run was two fuselage lengths with the glider sitting on the gear doors and hinge fingers pulled off the pin.

For other aircraft, have a look at the size of wheel relative to size/weight of aircraft.

Designers of fixed gear aircraft can squeeze more knots at cruise with smaller wheels. Itty bitty wheels do not take well to plowed fields. A standing or freshly mowed crop will be a better option.

On a related note, if flying a retractable gear SEP, what criteria would you apply when deciding whether to lower it for an off-airport landing?

In the event of an engine failure Always leave the gear up and apply full flap when touching down on anything that is not a runway

While I definitely agree that the priority in any emergency including an engine failure is to fly the aircraft, I don't agree with the premise that a full cause check should not be be done in most circumstances. So for example if the reason the engine failed was because you had the mixture leaned for low cruise, descended and then added a bunch of power causing the engine failure, you are implying it would be better to go ahead and crash rather then perform a 10 second cause check which would instantly restore full power :confused:

My advice, and it is worth everything you paid for it ;), is for low time pilots who don't fly that often to practice the initial actions for the engine fail scenario once on every flight.

So when you are flying along at some random point in the flight say to yourself that the engine has failed and do the following steps.

1) Say to yourself I am pitching the aircraft to best glide attitude and trimming

2) Look around and pick the nearest reasonably flat surface with a clear approach. Try to keep the search time to less then 10 seconds

3) Perform a cause check including physically touching each control to build the automatic muscle memory that will be save your butt when the pressure is on.

The cause check I teach (C 172) is as follows

- Fuel selector both quantity confirmed. ( fuel selector is touched , fuel gauges pointd to)

- Mixture rich ( Mixture knob physically pushed in)

- Carb heat on ( Carb heat actually applied)

- Mags both/left/right/both ( switched touched but not moved actions verbalized)

This entire drill takes bout 30 seconds and will make the vital actions that could save your life, automatic.

Finally a useful exercise is if you are downwind and cleared to land/ No 1, is to close the throttle completely when you are even with the end of the runway. The goal is touch down in the first 1/3 of the runway without ever touching the throttle. This is a fun exercise in its own right but is also a great way to develop gliding flightpath judgement.

BPF,

Thanks, that's very, very good advice in there. And free to boot! :ok:

FBW

BPF
Most low time ppl x-country flights in the UK are below cloudbase or under controlled airspace.
The reality of pilots 'practicing' for this situation frequently when they can barely afford to stay current is not going to happen.
The earlier example of a 'practice partial power loss at 5000ft in a cub' seems to be more of an inconvenience rather than an emergency.
In the UK airspace;cloud base and controlled airspace keep vfr flights to the low side of ideal,and so the time question becomes very important.
Possible air starts and complete system evaluation takes time that a LOW HOUR ppl does not have.
Commercial and Military trained Pilots are constantly 'checked' on a regular basis,and also practice as the norm.
To compare this for a low time ppl is unrealistic,he must be taught 'survival' and also route planning taking terrain suitability into account.
What we are talking about here is a non pilot induced failure not something that should be covered by normal safe flying practice.