Engine out thought

[EdFred]

10 percent for every 2 knots.
http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-...nd-increases-your-risk-of-a-landing-accident/

A 10 knot tail wind increases the landing roll by 50%. Add distance to clear 50 ft obstacle on landing and it can make for a rather interesting experience.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

Only a 600ft ground roll on a M20C. Plenty of cushion. But it's not the length that's the issue. Tricycles aren't the most stable of designs once on the ground at high speeds.

 

[Hank S]

Only a 600ft ground roll on a M20C. Plenty of cushion. But it's not the length that's the issue. Tricycles aren't the most stable of designs once on the ground at high speeds.

That's with heavy braking. What gets you with a tailwind us the extra runway you float past trying to slow down; if the runway is obstructed (like the ine I was based at for 7 years), losing extra speed can be a challenge for visitors.

 

[EdFred]

That's with heavy braking. What gets you with a tailwind us the extra runway you float past trying to slow down; if the runway is obstructed (like the ine I was based at for 7 years), losing extra speed can be a challenge for visitors.

Everyone just ignoring the part where I said touch down on the numbers?

 

[cgrab]

When my engine quit near an airport, I declared an emergency (multiple times) to get everyone else out of the way. I lined up on the runway into the wind and then I picked a landing spot and slipped to keep the spot from moving on the windshield and when I was over the runway I came out of the slip, deployed the flaps and held it off to bleed off speed until touchdown. The prop stopped as we slowed to about 40 knots and then we coasted off the runway.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

But my airplane is fairly slick, snd can chew up some runway if I come too fast.

I think this is the crux of the problem. Know your airplane and don't come in too fast. This is particularly paramount in an emergency situation when you don't have an option to be off.

 

[steingar]

I think this is the crux of the problem. Know your airplane and don't come in too fast. This is particularly paramount in an emergency situation when you don't have an option to be off.

Book landing distance over a 50 ft obstacle at sea level at 50 degrees F is about 1400 feet. Now, my obstacles are usually much larger than 50 feet, lets conservatively call them 100 feet. And I do mean conservatively. Now my landing distance is that much farther. Oh, and we aren't at sea level anymore, I'm at 1000 feet. Add some distance. Oh, and it summer, so its hot and humid outside. Add some distance. Now add 20 knot tailwind. Add some distance.

We hit 3K feet yet?

Oh, and while I 'm over those trees my tailwind is quite a bit higher, when surface winds are high here they're much higher a hundred feet in the air. So my ground speed is really screaming as I come it. And I promise you that if I dove for the runway in a full slip my arrival is going to break the airplane. Don't ask me how I know.

Sure, I'll be in one piece, and my aircraft belongs to the insurance company anyway. But I hope you can see why I'd have my druthers for a longer strip.

 

[Lndwarrior]

I think one problem with the OPs concern has to do with the way most of us are trained. We have "stabilized approach" driven into our heads during training. Rarely have I heard of CFI's teaching non-stabilized approaches as part of our emergency training. If they do it's usually a brief lesson on power off 180 (which can still be a stabilized approach).

Pilots should learn to land from any number of different approaches - high approach, low approach, mid-field landing, straight in approach, base to final (no downwind), downwind landing, whatever.

I flew for 20 years without ever doing a base to final landing. It was early in my instrument training and the tower gave me a base to final approach. I remember it kind of screwed with my head. I couldn't stop thinking, "I've never done this before" and it made me very uncomfortable. I also had had very few straight-in approaches until I started my IFR training. That, too, takes some getting use to. Not difficult, but in a real emergency I want to feel comfortable with landing the plane from any position/approach.

I fly out of a lightly used airport and now I practice non-standard approaches regularly.

 

[Hank S]

The first couple of base to final landings are different. My first one happened barely a month after finishing insurance dual in the Mooney (a whopping 4 months after completing my PPL), landing the evening before the Mooney Pilot Proficiency Program started . . . . It's all whatever Tower wants . . . . .

 

[EdFred]

I think one problem with the OPs concern has to do with the way most of us are trained. We have "stabilized approach" driven into our heads during training. Rarely have I heard of CFI's teaching non-stabilized approaches as part of our emergency training. If they do it's usually a brief lesson on power off 180 (which can still be a stabilized approach).

You've obviously never been one of my students.

 

[James331]

I think one problem with the OPs concern has to do with the way most of us are trained. We have "stabilized approach" driven into our heads during training. Rarely have I heard of CFI's teaching non-stabilized approaches as part of our emergency training. If they do it's usually a brief lesson on power off 180 (which can still be a stabilized approach).

Pilots should learn to land from any number of different approaches - high approach, low approach, mid-field landing, straight in approach, base to final (no downwind), downwind landing, whatever.

I flew for 20 years without ever doing a base to final landing. It was early in my instrument training and the tower gave me a base to final approach. I remember it kind of screwed with my head. I couldn't stop thinking, "I've never done this before" and it made me very uncomfortable. I also had had very few straight-in approaches until I started my IFR training. That, too, takes some getting use to. Not difficult, but in a real emergency I want to feel comfortable with landing the plane from any position/approach.

I fly out of a lightly used airport and now I practice non-standard approaches regularly.

And that's only going to get worse with the ACS and the continued paint by numbers dumbing down of aviation.

 

[timwinters]

You've obviously never been one of my students.

Or by Colonel Al, who taught me how to fly. He hated stabilized approaches. We did them occasionally just to do them and because he knew that's what the DPE would want to see on my checkride but the majority of my primary training approaches were power off approaches, and many times he would purposely set me up high on final to teach me slips.

 

[EdFred]

Or by Colonel Al, who taught me how to fly. He hated stabilized approaches. We did them occasionally just to do them and because he knew that's what the DPE would want to see on my checkride but the majority of my primary training approaches were power off approaches, and many were purposely high to teach me slips.

I start stabilized, but once I know I'm signing the student off for solo, I change it up - and the numbers aren't always the aiming point.

 

[luvflyin]

You've obviously never been one of my students.

Wow. The above posts where never during training had they done anything other than ‘downwind, base, final’ blew me away. That is negligence by a CFI.

 

[EdFred]

Wow. The above posts where never during training had they done anything other than ‘downwind, base, final’ blew me away. That is negligence by a CFI.

That's what happens when you release puppy mill CFI's into the wild. They only pass on what they were taught and never develop further than the cookie cutter curriculum.

 

[tspear]

Or by Colonel Al, who taught me how to fly. He hated stabilized approaches. We did them occasionally just to do them and because he knew that's what the DPE would want to see on my checkride but the majority of my primary training approaches were power off approaches, and many times he would purposely set me up high on final to teach me slips.

Sounds like my primary CFII. Power to idle or zero thrust (depended) on almost every approach. Straight in, in pattern, on base.... He was just flat out mean and tried to screw with me. Man, that was a lot of fun.

Tim

 

[timwinters]

I start stabilized, but once I know I'm signing the student off for solo, I change it up - and the numbers aren't always the aiming point.

Yeah, I likely started out with them also, but once I had a clue (you know, when I solo'ed after 250 hours ) they were few and far between.

 

[timwinters]

That's what happens when you release puppy mill CFI's into the wild.

Boy, that ain't no sheet!

You should post that in the thread where the kid is wondering which CFI/School to use....

 

[bflynn]

Thanks for the replies guys. I get the less speed=better chance of survival argument. My only concern is, if you do happen to screw up the approach into the wind you are out of options while if you screw up down wind you seem to have some options available.

Assuming you can fly to the runway, you are more likely to miss the runway landing downwind than upwind. Your time window of hitting the right spot is shorter and harder to judge. Obviously if you're going to be short trying to get to the other end, land the best you can, maybe shoot for grass to help slow you down? Keep it kinda tight in so you can do a 180 and land.

I've always thought one of the worst places to lose an engine would be turning crosswind to downwind. I wouldn't want to try to slip in for a downwind landing, by the time you lose 1000', how far down the runway are you? But do you have enough room to extend downwind to make a 180? Probably turn back toward the runway, make an S turn to the left then right and line up low for a downwind landing.

Depends on the wind.

 

[PaulS]

I think if you are a couple thousand feet up near the runway you can pick which end, but if you are gliding to the runway and end up 500 feet above pointed downwind, then dems the cards you are dealt, make the best of it and aim for wheels on the threshold of the runway.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was thinking about something the other day and wanted people’s input. Let’s say, God forbid, you have an engine out on a windy day. The engine quits high enough where you can glide to the airport. You set up and make a normal approach to land and follow the normal traffic pattern to land into the wind. Here’s where my thoughts went into effect. Let’s say it’s real windy( gusting above 25 knots and straight down a runway.) If you lined up for that runway straight into the wind, is’ent it a lot more likely you will have a harder time making the runway than if you landed down wind? Granted landing downwind would be brutal in these conditions but I’m always shocked at how much power it takes to maintain even 60 knots in a 172 in windy days( granted I’m normally flying with flaps out and things like that,) and I can’t imagine a 172 or similar would glide very far into those types of winds. It seems like it would be very easy to come up way short!

I’m just wondering that if your only objective is to make it onto the ground( which is likely what it would be in a pretty bad engine out,) then why would a pilot want to land into the wind in this scenario as it seems like you have less gliding distance once you turn into the wind and no way to recover from that if you are fighting a heavy head wind. At least if you went downwind you’d have a lot of help getting to the runway and it seems like more options to control glide distance( you could always pitch up if your ground speed is increasing thus regulating speed vs distance traveled without losing altitude,) whereas into the wind the only way to gain speed is to pitch down which would cause a loss of altitude while only slightly increasing distance travelled.

I practiced engine outs during training and was always taught to never extend your pattern beyond where you can safely glide back to the runway so I guess you could always just keep the pattern extremely tight but again once you turn into the wind you’d be really loosing altitude and groundspeed real quick!

Hoping someone will come along and explain this better to me!

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is that your glide angle with a tailwind is going to be much lower than you're used to, so you're quite likely to overrun the runway, especially if there are obstacles in the (downwind) approach path.

Let's say you're landing an airplane with a 60-knot approach speed, 60 knot best glide speed, 750 fpm power-off descent at that 60 knots, and 750-foot short field landing distance (with no wind) at an airport with a 3,000 foot runway and 50-foot obstacles that are 500 feet from each end of the runway, with no obstacles closer that would cause trouble (ie you'll survive even if you end up off the runway between the obstacles and the runway).

Landing into the 25-knot headwind, you'll have a ground roll of just 255 feet. You can aim 1/3 of the way down the runway and easily get down and stopped even if you screw up pretty badly in either direction. You can be 1,263 feet short or 2,245 feet long and be OK, and you can be 1,000 feet short or 1,745 feet long and stay on the runway. That means you have a window of 59.4 seconds to be OK, or 46.5 seconds and never be off the runway.

Landing with the 25-knot tailwind, you'll have a ground roll of 1,505 feet. Using the same aiming point, you can be 926 feet short (any shorter and you'll have hit the obstacles on the way in) in either case, and 955 feet long to be OK and 495 feet long to remain on the runway. That means your time windows will be 13.1 seconds and 9.9 seconds, respectively.

That's why we land into the wind if at all possible. Say you make the turn to final 20 seconds too late. In the headwind scenario, you touch down 1181 feet long and stop well within the runway. In the tailwind scenario, you slam into the trees past the runway 38.5 feet off the ground at 85 knots, and your survival is questionable at best.

So, you can screw up 4-5 times as bad with the headwind as you can with the tailwind. And, an equal screwup in terms of time can make the difference between sitting on the runway with a dead engine, or sitting under a tree as a dead pilot.

Thanks for the replies guys. I get the less speed=better chance of survival argument. My only concern is, if you do happen to screw up the approach into the wind you are out of options while if you screw up down wind you seem to have some options available.

Not true, as I've shown above. There is a MUCH higher margin for error into the wind, all else being equal.

When you are dead stick and there's a 25 knot wind, one possibility to consider is landing on the airport grounds instead of the runway. A 25 knot crosswind is beyond the demonstrated capabilities of many small aircraft.

Demonstrated crosswind... Ugh. I wish they wouldn't even publish this number. It's meaningless. It's not a limitation. I've never flown a single small aircraft that I don't think I could land in a 25-knot crosswind. I don't think it exists. I've landed a 182N in a 35-knot direct crosswind (over double the "maximum demonstrated" number) and still didn't run out of rudder.

If you can't get it all the way around and into the wind, I'd take the 25-knot crosswind over a 25-knot tailwind attempt any day. A 25-knot direct crosswind (referenced to the runway) is going to have a headwind component for the airplane thanks to the crab angle, and that will help with groundspeed.

 

[3393RP]

The OP's post and subsequent comments indicated to me he hadn't been flying for long and landing in a 25 knot crosswind wasn't something he had done before, much less with an engine failure.

Would you have attempted that 35 knot crosswind landing without the benefit of an engine and previous experience?

 

[denverpilot]

I think if you are a couple thousand feet up near the runway you can pick which end, but if you are gliding to the runway and end up 500 feet above pointed downwind, then dems the cards you are dealt, make the best of it and aim for wheels on the threshold of the runway.

500’ AGL in the downwind SHOULD be a piece of cake. Not something to take lightly or do the first time with a real engine failure, but you shouldn’t be losing 500’ making a 180 at best glide in anything but the worst brick of an airplane.

I think you could probably even make that in an Arrow with the gear already down. LOL.

The hardest part for anyone who’s not done it will be keeping the nose DOWN in the turn. The ground will look close and “scary”. Trust the performance numbers.

From the downwind this is do-able. From the departure end, JT gets worse because you need to make more than a 180 degree turn, thus the whole “impossible turn” debate.

You’re probably also starting out with more energy in a downwind. You’re likely significantly above best glide and can trade that speed for the beginning of the turn being fairly level, but then the nose HAS to come down to hold best glide.

Grab a CFI and try it. Have them demo one, and then do a few. I think you’ll be surprised.

 

[jspilot]

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is that your glide angle with a tailwind is going to be much lower than you're used to, so you're quite likely to overrun the runway, especially if there are obstacles in the (downwind) approach path.

Let's say you're landing an airplane with a 60-knot approach speed, 60 knot best glide speed, 750 fpm power-off descent at that 60 knots, and 750-foot short field landing distance (with no wind) at an airport with a 3,000 foot runway and 50-foot obstacles that are 500 feet from each end of the runway, with no obstacles closer that would cause trouble (ie you'll survive even if you end up off the runway between the obstacles and the runway).

Landing into the 25-knot headwind, you'll have a ground roll of just 255 feet. You can aim 1/3 of the way down the runway and easily get down and stopped even if you screw up pretty badly in either direction. You can be 1,263 feet short or 2,245 feet long and be OK, and you can be 1,000 feet short or 1,745 feet long and stay on the runway. That means you have a window of 59.4 seconds to be OK, or 46.5 seconds and never be off the runway.

Landing with the 25-knot tailwind, you'll have a ground roll of 1,505 feet. Using the same aiming point, you can be 926 feet short (any shorter and you'll have hit the obstacles on the way in) in either case, and 955 feet long to be OK and 495 feet long to remain on the runway. That means your time windows will be 13.1 seconds and 9.9 seconds, respectively.

That's why we land into the wind if at all possible. Say you make the turn to final 20 seconds too late. In the headwind scenario, you touch down 1181 feet long and stop well within the runway. In the tailwind scenario, you slam into the trees past the runway 38.5 feet off the ground at 85 knots, and your survival is questionable at best.

So, you can screw up 4-5 times as bad with the headwind as you can with the tailwind. And, an equal screwup in terms of time can make the difference between sitting on the runway with a dead engine, or sitting under a tree as a dead pilot.



Not true, as I've shown above. There is a MUCH higher margin for error into the wind, all else being equal.



Demonstrated crosswind... Ugh. I wish they wouldn't even publish this number. It's meaningless. It's not a limitation. I've never flown a single small aircraft that I don't think I could land in a 25-knot crosswind. I don't think it exists. I've landed a 182N in a 35-knot direct crosswind (over double the "maximum demonstrated" number) and still didn't run out of rudder.

If you can't get it all the way around and into the wind, I'd take the 25-knot crosswind over a 25-knot tailwind attempt any day. A 25-knot direct crosswind (referenced to the runway) is going to have a headwind component for the airplane thanks to the crab angle, and that will help with groundspeed.

Thanks so much for this response. It is exactly the type of analysis I was hoping to get! Your use of numbers makes the point totally clear to me and taught me a lot.

 

[jspilot]

The OP's post and subsequent comments indicated to me he hadn't been flying for long and landing in a 25 knot crosswind wasn't something he had done before, much less with an engine failure.

Would you have attempted that 35 knot crosswind landing without the benefit of an engine and previous experience?

I’ve flown for some 350 hours and about 6 or so years so I’m not exactly new to flying. I was simply thinking something through and brought a question to the group and am happy I did. I wish more people would take the risk of asking a question and starting dialogues on this site rather than people just always imagining they know everything.

As far as major crosswinds, you are correct to say I’ve never landed in 25 knot direct crosswinds. I fly in the Northeast where practically every airport has intersecting runways. I’ve flown in heavy wind but always try and land into the wind( thus prompting my thoughts about energy management and the intial question.)

 

[steingar]

I've landed some pretty hairy crosswinds, but I've run out of rudder a number of times. One time was at a POA event in WV. I was one of only 2 airplanes to fly in. I ran out of rudder in my first approach. Going around I told Mrs. Steingar that if it didn't work out this time we were landing elsewhere. My solution has always been to come in faster to increase airflow over the control surfaces. I can then slow down in ground effect, where ether wind sin't quite so bad.

The runway at WV62 is 3K feet. Had it been 2900 Id've had an excursion. The other fellow was flying a baby Beech, and I heard he nearly porpoised. I wasn't surprised, the winds were that bad.

Try and do that in my Mooney, no way no how. I'll go right off the end into the trees. That said, I'll probably limp away from it, which is actually a good outcome when the chips are that far down.

 

[EdFred]

I've landed some pretty hairy crosswinds, but I've run out of rudder a number of times. One time was at a POA event in WV. I was one of only 2 airplanes to fly in. I ran out of rudder in my first approach. Going around I told Mrs. Steingar that if it didn't work out this time we were landing elsewhere. My solution has always been to come in faster to increase airflow over the control surfaces. I can then slow down in ground effect, where ether wind sin't quite so bad.

The runway at WV62 is 3K feet. Had it been 2900 Id've had an excursion. The other fellow was flying a baby Beech, and I heard he nearly porpoised. I wasn't surprised, the winds were that bad.

Try and do that in my Mooney, no way no how. I'll go right off the end into the trees. That said, I'll probably limp away from it, which is actually a good outcome when the chips are that far down.

That's a recipe for disaster. If the wind is mostly steady, keep your normal approach speed.

My first landing in my first plane was at Delaware, OH. I ran out of rudder on the crosswind, and I also brain farted by going with the "increase approach speed by half the crosswind". Well, you know how hard it is to land a plane at 20kts higher than it wants to land? Bounce, Bounce, Bounce as I tried to force it down. Went wround, realized you only increase by half the gust factor (no gusts that day) so I came in with normal approach speed, and slip-crabbed it all the way in, and the landing was nearly perfect on the 2nd attempt.

Only increase the approach speed if it's gusting. Anything else just adds a broken link to the chain.

 

[tspear]

I fly in the Northeast where practically every airport has intersecting runways. I’ve flown in heavy wind but always try and land into the wind( thus prompting my thoughts about energy management and the intial question.)

With the intersecting runways you can almost always have a cross wind to practice. Just be loud on CTAF or go to a non-busy towered airport.

Tim

 

[steingar]

That's a recipe for disaster. If the wind is mostly steady, keep your normal approach speed.

My first landing in my first plane was at Delaware, OH. I ran out of rudder on the crosswind, and I also brain farted by going with the "increase approach speed by half the crosswind". Well, you know how hard it is to land a plane at 20kts higher than it wants to land? Bounce, Bounce, Bounce as I tried to force it down. Went wround, realized you only increase by half the gust factor (no gusts that day) so I came in with normal approach speed, and slip-crabbed it all the way in, and the landing was nearly perfect on the 2nd attempt.

Only increase the approach speed if it's gusting. Anything else just adds a broken link to the chain.

You therefore need a lesson from me. You never force the aircraft down, that can lead to a porpoise and prop strike. You continue to fly in ground effect, allowing the aircraft to slow down. Nearer the ground it's far easier to stay on track, and once you slow down to your landing speed you land. I only do this for gusting conditions or if the crosswinds exceed my rudder authority.

Mind you, I've yet to try it in the Mooney and don't know that I ever will. I doubt a slick aircraft like a Mooney is going to be in a big hurry to slow down, so that float could be a long thing. Then again, I've seen guys in Mooneys come in way too fast and manage to land fine after the float. That said, it took them several thousand feet to land. On the other hand, DLZ is nearly 6k feet long, so my approach may actually work in the Mooney, and is likely to do so at my home field. Thankfully my home drome has long runways and a crosswind runway sometimes.

 

[tspear]

Mind you, I've yet to try it in the Mooney and don't know that I ever will. I doubt a slick aircraft like a Mooney is going to be in a big hurry to slow down, so that float could be a long thing. Then again, I've seen guys in Mooneys come in way too fast and manage to land fine after the float. That said, it took them several thousand feet to land. On the other hand, DLZ is nearly 6k feet long, so my approach may actually work in the Mooney, and is likely to do so at my home field. Thankfully my home drome has long runways and a crosswind runway sometimes.

I have done this in a Cirrus SR20 at KPSM. Works very well. Roughly 1500ft per five knots with throttle to idle when a couple feet off the runway is my experience.

Tim

 

[EdFred]

You therefore need a lesson from me. You never force the aircraft down, that can lead to a porpoise and prop strike. You continue to fly in ground effect, allowing the aircraft to slow down. Nearer the ground it's far easier to stay on track, and once you slow down to your landing speed you land. I only do this for gusting conditions or if the crosswinds exceed my rudder authority.

Why would I want to continue to fly in ground effect when if I fly the correct speed I don't have to worry about it? Remember the plane doesn't care or know which direction the wind is from until you touch your wheels to the ground, so there's no reason to increase airspeed.

 

[PaulS]

500’ AGL in the downwind SHOULD be a piece of cake. Not something to take lightly or do the first time with a real engine failure, but you shouldn’t be losing 500’ making a 180 at best glide in anything but the worst brick of an airplane.

I think you could probably even make that in an Arrow with the gear already down. LOL.

The hardest part for anyone who’s not done it will be keeping the nose DOWN in the turn. The ground will look close and “scary”. Trust the performance numbers.

From the downwind this is do-able. From the departure end, JT gets worse because you need to make more than a 180 degree turn, thus the whole “impossible turn” debate.

You’re probably also starting out with more energy in a downwind. You’re likely significantly above best glide and can trade that speed for the beginning of the turn being fairly level, but then the nose HAS to come down to hold best glide.

Grab a CFI and try it. Have them demo one, and then do a few. I think you’ll be surprised.

I didn't say in the downwind, I said you get to the runway, 500 feet up pointing downwind, in other words for winds favoring 29, you arrive near the 11 numbers at 500 feet, no thanks, I'm not flying a down wind to 29, I'm landing on 11, tailwind be damned. You can try flying a downwind base and final from there at 500 agl, not me, not even a downwind to a short approach, no thanks.

 

[denverpilot]

I didn't say in the downwind, I said you get to the runway, 500 feet up pointing downwind, in other words for winds favoring 29, you arrive near the 11 numbers at 500 feet, no thanks, I'm not flying a down wind to 29, I'm landing on 11, tailwind be damned. You can try flying a downwind base and final from there at 500 agl, not me, not even a downwind to a short approach, no thanks.

Hmm wasn’t clear. Okay. Yeah, landing downwind from there is probably prudent. Do what you gotta do.

The OP was about being IN the downwind and somehow not being able to turn and land for whatever potato reason, so if we’re changing the game scenario, fine.

Just land the dang thing on the best available surface going as slowly as possible using what we aerodynamic stuff you know to accomplish it. Don’t stall and don’t die. Try to hit softer stuff if you have to hit stuff. The end.

 

[steingar]

Why would I want to continue to fly in ground effect when if I fly the correct speed I don't have to worry about it? Remember the plane doesn't care or know which direction the wind is from until you touch your wheels to the ground, so there's no reason to increase airspeed.

If you are on speed and the gust factor or crosswind exceeds your rudder authority you can power up and go around. Without a working engine you may well be as good as dead, since you will loose control of the aircraft. Now with a faster approach air goes over the control surfaces with greater velocity. That increases the force that they can exert, increasing the authority of your rudder and ailerons. Now you can track straight against that nasty uncooperative wind. Problem is you'll be fast when you do get into the runway environment.

First, if you do porpoise and strike the prop, so what? Engine isn't making power anyway, and you're likely facing repairs no matter what you do (assuming you did things like carb heat, switch tanks and of course remember to bring along enough gas). Moreover, striking the prop beats CFIT any day. If you overrun, again beats the alternative. Unless your runway abuts a cliff whatever you hit is likely to be more forgiving than what you'd hit in an off airport landing.

If that's what happens to me when I bring my Mooney into that 3K foot strip with a 20 knot tailwind component, oh well. Airplane will be pranged, but odds are I'll be fine, if a bit bruised. If its a 5K foot strip I probably won't do any of that, even the Mooney will bleed off enough speed to land safely. They key is just a bit of airmanship, enough pitch up that you don't collide with the runway, not so much that you balloon. Just gently hold it off, let the speed bleed off and wait until you hit your landing speed and it settles down.

That said, I can count the number of times I had to use this technique on the fingers of one hand. Still, not the worst trick to have in your tool box.

 

[EdFred]

Again, the plane has no idea where the wind is coming from because it's flying in the parcel of moving air. You're missing that part - which is why flying faster on purpose under power in a steady state crosswind is well....dumb.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I didn't say in the downwind, I said you get to the runway, 500 feet up pointing downwind, in other words for winds favoring 29, you arrive near the 11 numbers at 500 feet, no thanks, I'm not flying a down wind to 29, I'm landing on 11, tailwind be damned. You can try flying a downwind base and final from there at 500 agl, not me, not even a downwind to a short approach, no thanks.

Let's look at this mathematically, since I think the results will surprise you.

If you look at post #60 - In that scenario (based off the OP but with extra specifics), if I'm over the numbers at 500 feet with a tailwind, I have three options: Attempt a downwind landing straight in from current position, attempt a 360 to a downwind landing, or attempt to turn around and land upwind, ideally via a teardrop maneuver. A full pattern, of course, is foolish.

Intuitively, I think I would go for option 3. Groundspeed would be pretty quick at first, and we could start the turn prior to being abeam the threshold to ensure we could make the runway.

If I'm over the numbers at 500 feet with a tailwind and attempt the straight-in downwind landing, my touchdown would be 5,738 feet down the runway, which is to say I would touch down 2,738 feet past the runway if there were no obstacles. In reality, I'd still be 195 feet in the air when passing over the obstacles past the opposite end of the runway, and I'm dead. So, the straight-in downwind landing from 500 AGL at the numbers is definitely a no-go unless you have over 7,000 feet of runway available.

Second scenario, 360 to a downwind landing. We have 40 seconds until we meet terra firma, so we need our turn rate to be triple standard rate, which will require a bank angle of 26.33º, but that's going to increase drag and hasten our meeting with terra firma, so we'll need to pull it around a bit quicker, probably a 30-35º bank angle to make it back around by touchdown. This is a viable option. Keep in mind that a constant bank angle will result in us not landing at the threshold, but about 1,687 feet down the runway, so we're going to go off the end of the runway (again, see post 60). A perfect turn about a point will have us flying at a much higher bank angle at the beginning and end of the turn, increasing the chances of a stall and making the landing very difficult. But, this is a viable option and survivable.

Finally, for the third scenario, assuming the wind is right down the runway, we could offset to either side while flying downwind and make a 180 to land upwind. Let's say we spend half the 40 seconds flying and half turning, so our turn will be very similar to the turn required for the 360 above. 20 seconds of flying downwind will take us 2869 feet from the starting point. We'll want to offset by the diameter of the turn (or twice the radius) so that we're over the runway at the end of the turn. Going with a 30º bank, our turn radius will be 553 feet so we'll want to offset by 1106 feet. Since we're flying the hypoteneuse of the triangle, that means we'll need to turn 22.6 degrees off runway heading to get our offset, and it'll place us abeam a point 2,647 feet down the runway. The wind will push us an additional 843 feet down the runway during the turn, thus we would come up 490 feet short. However, an increased angle of bank early in the turn is safer here as we don't need the higher bank near the ground due to facing into the wind as we approach the ground. So, we could decrease the offset slightly and crank it around a bit on the high side and have an easier approach. In any case, this scenario is survivable as well.

Now, let's throw a crosswind into the mix. Let's say that 25 knots is now 45 degrees off runway heading. First scenario is still fatal. For the second scenario, our 360 maneuver is made more difficult - If we start the turn away from the crosswind to keep the highest bank angles further above the ground, we're going to have a headwind as we come around to the base-to-final portion and we might not make it. We certainly will have eliminated any additional options should we come up short. If we instead begin the turn into the crosswind, we'll need to have our highest bank angle as we're completing the turn near the ground, which is even more risky as we may well hit a wingtip and cartwheel, which is likely to result in serious injuries at least.

But, the "teardrop" is actually helped by the crosswind. Instead of making a turn to offset, we can fly the runway heading. If we fly that heading for 20 seconds again, the wind will blow us 597 feet to the downwind side before the turn, and if we do the same 20-second turn we'd be a total of 1194 feet to the side, except our turn radius will take us 1106 feet back toward the runway, so the 20 seconds straight + 20 second turn puts us 88 feet downwind of centerline. So, the better option is to just fly runway heading for more like 15 seconds, and then make our turn and we'll have a 5-second "final" into the wind. We also blow downwind a shorter distance, meaning we make the threshold without issue.

Let's say we do 15 seconds runway heading followed by a 20-second turn and a 5-second "final". After 15 seconds, we're 447 feet off centerline and 1,966 feet down the runway. At the end of the turn, we'll be 2,562 feet down the runway and 63 feet upwind of centerline. Of course, we've also turned around, so there's 2,562 feet of runway in front of us. Our 5-second final has us touching down 357 feet later, so we stop rolling with 1,950 feet of runway remaining in front of us. The crosswind also pushes us back toward the centerline, in fact we'll need to crab or slip a little bit on our short final to keep from being blown back across the centerline.

So, in this case, I know which one I'm doing! Of course, not all situations are equal, and we obviously don't have time to do these calculations in the air, so to both @jspilot and @PaulS, thank you for the opportunity to think this through thoroughly on the ground! We should be able to tell using normal pilot skills whether the downwind landing would put us past the end of the runway for the straight-in downwind landing, but the other options are not so intuitive.

I feel the urge to create a spreadsheet to make these scenarios easier to calculate so I can play around with them a bit...

 

[wayne]

Commercial applicants handle this all the time for the Power Off 180.

If the wind is blowing, turn in sooner. Maybe even no pattern at all, just point the thing at the runway and get there, if you can.

Even if not planning a Commercial ticket, go have a CFI do some Power Off 180s with ya. It’s a great lesson in energy management. Maybe something to ask to do on your next Flight Review.

A CFI had me do a power off 180 with the gear down in an Arrow; during a BFR or club flight check, I forget which. Man was that descent rate an eye opener.

 

[steingar]

Again, the plane has no idea where the wind is coming from because it's flying in the parcel of moving air. You're missing that part - which is why flying faster on purpose under power in a steady state crosswind is well....dumb.

Unless said crosswind exceeds your rudder authority and you cannot maintain your course on final.

 

[EdFred]

Unless said crosswind exceeds your rudder authority and you cannot maintain your course on final.

There is no crosswind while the plane is airborne so the extra speed does nothing for you. Also you eventually have to slow to touchdown speed. If you can't maintain solely with rudder at Vref you definitely can't maintain solely with rudder at sub Vref and from what I recall there isn't a GA plane out there where Vs > Vref.

So, how are you maintaining the centerline once you get below Vrudderalonedoesntmaintaincenterline? Does it magically maintain because its over the runway? Wouldn't whatever you are doing once below Vrudderdoesnmaintaincenterline to maintain be applicable prior to getting there?

 

[3393RP]

Flyingcheesehead has put pencil and paper to good use. His conclusions illuminate some surprising facts.

 

[tspear]

There is no crosswind while the plane is airborne so the extra speed does nothing for you. Also you eventually have to slow to touchdown speed. If you can't maintain solely with rudder at Vref you definitely can't maintain solely with rudder at sub Vref and from what I recall there isn't a GA plane out there where Vs > Vref.

So, how are you maintaining the centerline once you get below Vrudderalonedoesntmaintaincenterline? Does it magically maintain because its over the runway? Wouldn't whatever you are doing once below Vrudderdoesnmaintaincenterline to maintain be applicable prior to getting there?

Read the initial premise @steingar stated. Winds steady/gusting at higher velocity at 100ft AGL then on the runway. Often see this on the coasts where tree lines break up the wind near the runway.
My assumption is @steingar prefers to slip instead of crab down through the cross wind; which does have limits on rudder authority.

Tim