Engine out approaches

EdFred said:
I can't open up my tip tanks nor my main tanks in flight. ;)
Click to expand...


Have you considered?

G82_canopener.jpg
 
after all this talk about engine out approaches, I went out this morning and did 2, engine to idle approaches from mid-field left downwind at pattern, which is 1200 feet above the runway.

First time I did in quite a while. First approach I found myself doing well, putting in 10* flaps on a Short Base, turning final and still good. Waited till short final to add in more flaps and landed past the numbers by 150 feet or so. Second time, I seemed higher and put flaps in more on base, and landed just about on the numbers. In either case, I didn't drop to the full 40* flaps, only 20*-30* (look over the shoulder and count method of placing flaps in the 67 C172H)

It was good practice, thanks for encouraging me :yesnod: by this discussion.
 
RMCN172RG said:
No but gear down is not landing configuration, is it?
Click to expand...
Uhhh, yeah, I think it is. Unless you plan landing gear-up. I'm sure it is for the definition of Vs0.

BTW, after further consideration, I suspect you'd have more problems in a fixed-gear plane like a Cherokee Six or C-207 since you can't delay gear extension, and will be eating more drag.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm gonna have to go try out another power-off approach and take as much data as possible. I think the straight-ahead descent rate at best glide (100mph) in the Cherokee Six is over 1500 fpm. Add in a steep bank and that descent rate goes up.

Also it occurred to me that I am doing this at 5850' MSL. On a 65 degree day that translates to a DA of over 7500', which puts my true airspeed at 110mph. A 10% increase in speed and probably also in descent. Also, since the TPA is only 800' that really cramps things.

To be clear, I did manage the landing in the 6 from abeam the numbers, at 800'. I maintained 100mph, in a clean config, and cranked in full flaps right as I crossed the extended threshold. There was absolutely no wiggle room though. A bit more headwind, or a little off centerline and I wouldn't have made it.
 
COFlyBoy said:
To be clear, I did manage the landing in the 6 from abeam the numbers, at 800'. I maintained 100mph, in a clean config, and cranked in full flaps right as I crossed the extended threshold. There was absolutely no wiggle room though. A bit more headwind, or a little off centerline and I wouldn't have made it.
Click to expand...
Too close for my comfort. I hope what you learned from that is that if you ever have to do this for real, you should aim for a higher altitude at the key position (usually abeam the touchdown point) so you have a bit more margin for safety.
 
Ron Levy said:
Too close for my comfort. I hope what you learned from that is that if you ever have to do this for real, you should aim for a higher altitude at the key position (usually abeam the touchdown point) so you have a bit more margin for safety.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I don't fly anywhere at <1000AGL. And I do keep my patterns tight and high (when possible).
 
I have watched a Glassair III and Rare Bear and a Thunder Mustang all make actual power off landings. all were very successful. I am sure there is an airplane that can't make a power off approach but I don't know what it is.

IMO if you can't glide to the runway from abeam the numbers you are probably flying too wide of a pattern.

If you are flying something with the emergency procedure of "throw the keys out and follow them down:)" Then you probably ought to know where you need to be from then end of the runway at TPA altitude to be able to make it.

I admit the Cherokee Six meets this criteria, but that is all the more reason to practice it frequently. Yes, don't do it with your wife in the Cherokee Six. However most single engine airplanes can easily do it and most passengers would not even think it might be an unusual maneuver. Hint, Learn how and when to put the flaps down, if at all.

Brian
 
COFlyBoy said:
To be clear, I did manage the landing in the 6 from abeam the numbers, at 800'. I maintained 100mph, in a clean config, and cranked in full flaps right as I crossed the extended threshold. There was absolutely no wiggle room though. A bit more headwind, or a little off centerline and I wouldn't have made it.
Click to expand...

better yet -- don't aim for the numbers -- aim for a specific point about 1/3rd down the runway (assuming it is not a short field).

This way if you're short, you'll see how short.

Around here aiming for the numbers is asking for trouble. 4 of the 5 airports I frequent have significant drop offs near the approach threshold. Just a bit of wind means there will be a down draft.
 
dmccormack said:
better yet -- don't aim for the numbers -- aim for a specific point about 1/3rd down the runway (assuming it is not a short field).
Click to expand...

I consider this to be the way to do it anyway. When it happens for real, you'll do it the way you practiced it. If you aim for the numbers, then you'll be in a world of hurt if you come up short.
 
COFlyBoy said:
OK, I'm gonna have to go try out another power-off approach and take as much data as possible. I think the straight-ahead descent rate at best glide (100mph) in the Cherokee Six is over 1500 fpm. Add in a steep bank and that descent rate goes up.

Also it occurred to me that I am doing this at 5850' MSL. On a 65 degree day that translates to a DA of over 7500', which puts my true airspeed at 110mph. A 10% increase in speed and probably also in descent. Also, since the TPA is only 800' that really cramps things.

To be clear, I did manage the landing in the 6 from abeam the numbers, at 800'. I maintained 100mph, in a clean config, and cranked in full flaps right as I crossed the extended threshold. There was absolutely no wiggle room though. A bit more headwind, or a little off centerline and I wouldn't have made it.
Click to expand...


That is about what I found as well. 800ft would make it a bit more difficult. Keeping your speed up on downwind might help? I was doing it from 1000ft. You have to turn directly toward the end of the runway immediatly. I don't recall using flaps at all, although we might have used 1 notch. 100mph was the minimum speed to have enough energy to stop the descent in the flare.

As Ron points out, the point here is that after doing this a few times you will know where you need to be realitive to your touchdown point at 800-1000 feet in a real emergency and be able to from land that point. Also you know that it you need to approach 100+mph.

The Cherokee 6 is one of the few airplane I don't recommend power approaches as a normal approach.

Brian
 
dmccormack said:
sorry -- it was somewhat rhetorical question. IIRC the P-51 Vs1 was 100 mph.

Bob Hoover flew entire aerobatic routines power off in a twin.
Click to expand...

How did he get off the ground? :lol:

Hoover's shows were really great. I was lucky enough to see him twice before he retired. Super nice guy, too.


Trapper John
 
dmccormack said:
sorry -- it was somewhat rhetorical question. IIRC the P-51 Vs1 was 100 mph.

Bob Hoover flew entire aerobatic routines power off in a twin.
Click to expand...

Being able to feather would make a huge difference. CS props are enormous air brakes (except on Mooneys for some reason. Those airplanes are slippery)
 
Best glide = most distance, not best distance. The published best glide speed (which is only for MaxGW) might not be the speed you want for your power off approaches.
 
COFlyBoy said:
I'd so totally ride with you (assuming you have 2 seats). And, I'd even pay for the upholstery cleaning afterward.:eek:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm just a lowly S-1S (single-hole) driver. :D Unlike the S-2C, I've got a fixed pitch prop, so don't come down quite as fast...unless you put in a full-deflection slip...then maybe 3000 fpm (now I'm curious). It really is a nice feature of the airplane...you won't glide as far as some others in the event of an engine out, but you can really put it down where you want it...almost no such thing as being too high. :yesnod:
 
Ron Levy said:
Uhhh, yeah, I think it is. Unless you plan landing gear-up. I'm sure it is for the definition of Vs0.
Click to expand...

In the 172RG handbook Vs0 the bottom end of the White Arc on the air speed indicator has full flaps associated with it and no mention of gear up or down.

On the 172SP the gear is welded a mute point. Or, is a 172SP always in landing configuration?

:D Just asking, don't take this too seriously. :devil:
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, after further consideration, I suspect you'd have more problems in a fixed-gear plane like a Cherokee Six or C-207 since you can't delay gear extension, and will be eating more drag.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Now in the 172RG I can get best glide performance with Gear back up, prop course and throttle full (even if the engine is dead). There was a set of charts in Aviation Safety a year or so ago comparing the different configurations.
 
brcase said:
I have watched a Glassair III and Rare Bear and a Thunder Mustang all make actual power off landings. all were very successful.
Click to expand...
But I'll bet they were a lot higher than 1000 feet AGL when abeam the touchdown point. And I know, because I've flown the Glasair III.
I am sure there is an airplane that can't make a power off approach but I don't know what it is.
Click to expand...
There are plenty, but pretty much all really big planes. However, among those which can, there are many (including some production piston singles) which lose more than 1000 feet from the key position abeam the touchdown point down to the touchdown point, and that's the point I'm making. Just because the Commercial PTS calls for the maneuver to be commenced at 1000 AGL doesn't mean every plane you fly can perform that maneuver at all, no less with a reasonable safety margin. Whatever you fly, know what it can do, and fly it accordingly. If you do lose the engine on such a plane, hit the key position at an appropriate altitude as determined by the POH or your own practice attempts, and don't let anyone try to talk you into attempting a maneuver your plane can't do safely just because the PTS seems to call for it.
 
Last edited:
Didn't this entire thread start because the PTS calls for powered approaches and some have argued it's not always necessary to fly a pattern with power?

Wow -- full circle!
 
Ron Levy said:
But I'll bet they were a lot higher than 1000 feet AGL when abeam the touchdown point. And I know, because I've flown the Glasair III.
There are plenty, but pretty much all really big planes. However, among those which can, there are many (including some production piston singles) which lose more than 1000 feet from the key position abeam the touchdown point down to the touchdown point, and that's the point I'm making. Just because the Commercial PTS calls for the maneuver to be commenced at 1000 AGL doesn't mean every plane you fly can perform that maneuver at all, no less with a reasonable safety margin. Whatever you fly, know what it can do, and fly it accordingly. If you do lose the engine on such a plane, hit the key position at an appropriate altitude as determined by the POH or your own practice attempts, and don't let anyone try to talk you into attempting a maneuver your plane can't do safely just because the PTS seems to call for it.
Click to expand...

One thing I gotta believe is irrefutable is the fact that there are many times when a pattern has to be extended far enough due to ATC instructions and/or other traffic that "making the runway" when all the power is lost at a critical point is impossible in any airplane. IME (possibly biased due to being based at a busy towered field) that situation is quite common.
 
gismo said:
One thing I gotta believe is irrefutable is the fact that there are many times when a pattern has to be extended far enough due to ATC instructions and/or other traffic that "making the runway" when all the power is lost at a critical point is impossible in any airplane. IME (possibly biased due to being based at a busy towered field) that situation is quite common.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, however the mistake I see pilots doing in this situation is starting their descent from their normal position. If you know you are going to extend, Stay at pattern altitude until you at a point to make a normal descent, instead of descending to 300-500 feet and then motoring up to the runway.
We frequently practice power failure from 1000 feet, but seldom pratice from less than 1000, unless there is runway in front of us.

You may still have a power failure but, it is just the same as having a power failure out in the pratice area away from the airport, you can't make the airport either way.

Brian
 
Ron Levy said:
But I'll bet they were a lot higher than 1000 feet AGL when abeam the touchdown point. And I know, because I've flown the Glasair III.
There are plenty, but pretty much all really big planes. However, among those which can, there are many (including some production piston singles) which lose more than 1000 feet from the key position abeam the touchdown point down to the touchdown point, and that's the point I'm making. Just because the Commercial PTS calls for the maneuver to be commenced at 1000 AGL doesn't mean every plane you fly can perform that maneuver at all, no less with a reasonable safety margin. Whatever you fly, know what it can do, and fly it accordingly. If you do lose the engine on such a plane, hit the key position at an appropriate altitude as determined by the POH or your own practice attempts, and don't let anyone try to talk you into attempting a maneuver your plane can't do safely just because the PTS seems to call for it.
Click to expand...


I will admit I tip toed pretty carefully with my wording to not say they can do it from abeam the numbers. While I have flown Glassair III's and in a Thunder Mustang I have not flown either enough to be profiecent enough in them to say if the can or can't.

Just out of curiosity does anyone know what the glide ratio of a Glassair III is. With a 1/2 mile out downwind at 1000 feet I think it would probably take a glide ratio of about 4 or 5 to 1 to make the runway. Admittedly it would happen very fast.


Brian
 
I found my old performance spread sheet from when I was working on the Thunder Mustang. Theoretical best LD was about between 11 and 12 to 1 at something like 170mph. This probably neglect propellor drag which I could easily see cutting the LD in half.

I had forgotton that I had a spreadsheet for the Glassair III as well it shows a best LD of about 11 at about 170 MPH as well. Again not including propeller drag.

Brian
 
If you cannot trust that engine to run you have no business leaving the ground!

Now, having said that I have no hesitation to practice/demonstrate landings, engine to idle abeam the numbers, and glide your pattern back to the numbers with no additional power... Bob Hoover's mastery of energy conservation is a lesson for us all...

In well over a half century of flying I have not lost an engine totally though I have had fouled plugs here and there, and carb ice a few times... I have not had an engine quit during the landing phase...

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
If you cannot trust that engine to run you have no business leaving the ground!
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but for me it's not so much about "not trusting the engine to run" as it is about "not trusting the airplane to maintain altitude without power". :D

As long as there's the tiniest chance the engine will quit, I think it's wise to fly as if it might, whenever practical.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and in the traffic pattern, it is often (if not generally) not practical, even when it's possible.
Click to expand...


Aw. come on, Ron, why would you even say that?

I do power off approaches the majority of the time. I pull the power to idle when abeam the numbers & fly about 1/2 mile pattern. They, along with full flap landings (40* on my bird), are great practice.

I'd also estimate that I'm the only one in the pattern during 90% of my landings.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and in the traffic pattern, it is often (if not generally) not practical, even when it's possible.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about yanking the power in the pattern (although I find it's often practical, from abeam the numbers at least- I've even done so by request from tower controllers)...

I was talking about not having blind faith in the engine during any phase of flight (as relates to the tangent discussion about why engine-out approaches are worth practicing, considering the general reliability of airplane engines).

But getting back to the thought of practicing engine-outs in the pattern: do you feel that it's better to simulate this away from the pattern, or are you saying it serves no practical purpose regardless?

I'm guessing the former- losing thrust is always an alarming surprise, and the odds of getting on the ground without mishap are usually slim, but if one has practiced going from TPA, or higher, with the prop idling, I think it's logical to assume the odds will improve, no matter where you end up.
 
rottydaddy said:
I'm guessing the former- losing thrust is always an alarming surprise, and the odds of getting on the ground without mishap are usually slim, but if one has practiced going from TPA, or higher, with the prop idling, I think it's logical to assume the odds will improve, no matter where you end up.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why the Comm PTS has two events to test the pilot's proficiency in this scenario.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and in the traffic pattern, it is often (if not generally) not practical, even when it's possible.
Click to expand...

Ron, you heap bright dude, and are usually really bright about this stuff, but I'm calling you hard on this one. Most of us are petering around in GA singles and twins, not hot driving slippery glass experimental shenanigans or turbine powered mayhem. Practicing dead-stick landings can make one a much better pilot whether or not one ever encounters the dreaded event. A lot more guys have bought it because they couldn't do the dead-stick landing than ever suffered midairs, and we seem to spend a lot of time worry about midairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top