How many of you practice emergencies?

[RyanShort1]

I’m still not sure how short/soft field landings prepare one for an engine out any more than a normal landing does.

Precision, knowledge about grass or other unprepared surfaces, and knowing how much space you need for minimal damage to the aircraft, and thus the occupants.

 

[AV8R_87]

I’m still not sure how short/soft field landings prepare one for an engine out any more than a normal landing does.

When the only suitable place to put it down is a small patch of grass surrounded by obstacles (natural or man-made) those skills become extremely valuable.
Some people fly every landing like it's a short/soft field, at the lowest possible airspeed and always aiming for the numbers. Most GA pilots don't do that, though. It's easy to get sloppy when operating from a long paved runway that gives you plenty of space to come in with extra speed and float 1000 feet.
Hence why keeping the soft/short skills in good order is essential for an engine out emergency.

 

[DavidWhite]

Twice a year one of my engines fail.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Precision, knowledge about grass or other unprepared surfaces, and knowing how much space you need for minimal damage to the aircraft, and thus the occupants.

Unless this is actually practiced off airport, the surfaces you’re practicing on bear little relevance to an emergency landing surface, both in terms of suitability and stopping ability. And minimal damage is about how you hit stuff, not how much space you have.

When the only suitable place to put it down is a small patch of grass surrounded by obstacles (natural or man-made) those skills become extremely valuable.
Some people fly every landing like it's a short/soft field, at the lowest possible airspeed and always aiming for the numbers. Most GA pilots don't do that, though. It's easy to get sloppy when operating from a long paved runway that gives you plenty of space to come in with extra speed and float 1000 feet.
Hence why keeping the soft/short skills in good order is essential for an engine out emergency.

Every landing can be a precision landing, regardless of surface, obstacles, or space. If flying precisely requires you to do something different than you do every day, you’re going to default to what you do every day, not precise flying. If you can fly to an aiming point on a 10,000 foot runway with no obstacles, you can do the same thing to clear an obstacle into a short field.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My last actual "practice" engine out was during a flight review back in late June, 2024. However, I got into the practice (a long time ago) of continually scanning for possible put-down places. Fortunately for me, I fly mostly around the Delmarva peninsula where there is a plethora of farmland. (I understand that soybean fields are the most forgiving.)

I have heard the exact opposite from some of our glider pilots on PoA - That soybeans are the "grabbiest" of crops and the most likely to flip you over on landing. Caveat aviator.

I find it interesting that a thread about practicing emergencies is frequently including the need to practice short and soft field landings.

You are very likely to need those techniques in an off-field landing.

 

[Albany Tom]

I practice short field to/land every time I fly, because I fly out of a short field. To me that's not an emergency thing, though, it's more along the lines of not wanting to experiment with the limitations of me or the aircraft. I can't understand how someone who has never flown out of a short or short obstructed field can look at a chart and estimate that they'll be OK. I'm not sure how much that would help in an emergency, except that I know I don't need 2500' to land and stop the plane, and I'm not going to come in way too fast.

I'm also in the camp that regularly lands with idle power from abeam the numbers. And yes, you can do it just fine in a PA-28, either tapered or hershey bar. In either, flaps don't go down until you know you've made the field.

One of the things I had to do before solo, that I should practice more often probably, is a simulated power out circle to land. That doesn't sound any different that a power off 180, but it does require you to plan ahead a bit to get pointed the right way and at the right spot to have an approach that works. Worth knowing how to do, IMHO.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I’m still not sure how short/soft field landings prepare one for an engine out any more than a normal landing does.

You likely have higher standards than many pilots
Consider the old pilot adage "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing". Some pilots believe that.
I'm reminded of 1 person I flew with at my original trainer airport shortly after we got our licenses, who would say he landed "on the numbers" even if he touched down 1k feet beyond it. Essentially he'd consider being 3 feet off the ground flying in ground effect as essentially having already landed. Someone like that benefits significantly from short field landing practice where energy mgmt to get it touched down at the right speed at a precise spot is required in order to be considered successful. Standard landing criteria are a little too forgiving (especially when you're operating on a 6500+ ft rwy)

 

[MauleSkinner]

You likely have higher standards than many pilots

That’s pretty much a given.

But again, if a pilot can’t apply tighter standards to normal operations, they’re not going to default to tighter standards in an emergency.

 

[172andyou]

I have heard the exact opposite from some of our glider pilots on PoA - That soybeans are the "grabbiest" of crops and the most likely to flip you over on landing. Caveat aviator.

Dan Gryder has done some testing suggesting otherwise.

 

[Zeldman]

Glad to see so many here practice emergency landings.


Now how many here practice emergency take offs.??

 

[RyanShort1]

Unless this is actually practiced off airport, the surfaces you’re practicing on bear little relevance to an emergency landing surface, both in terms of suitability and stopping ability. And minimal damage is about how you hit stuff, not how much space you have.

Every landing can be a precision landing, regardless of surface, obstacles, or space. If flying precisely requires you to do something different than you do every day, you’re going to default to what you do every day, not precise flying. If you can fly to an aiming point on a 10,000 foot runway with no obstacles, you can do the same thing to clear an obstacle into a short field.

I normally respect your posts, but this one feels like you disrespected yourself. I'll go to my corner.

 

[texasclouds]

Glad to see so many here practice emergency landings.


Now how many here practice emergency take offs.??

This is so true. You never know when you may get a call to gas up the Cezna and fly to DC to save the President.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I normally respect your posts, but this one feels like you disrespected yourself.

How so?

 

[Lindberg]

I’m still not sure how short/soft field landings prepare one for an engine out any more than a normal landing does.

Because many pilots' normal landing is touching down somewhere on the 8000' runway and stopping before the end. And "planning for every landing to be a go around until proven otherwise."

I firmly believe that the myth that "go arounds are free," kills pilots. And leads to ****ty landing skills. I had an instructor who taught me that if there's something wrong with your approach, you fix it, and you land where you intended to land. Go arounds were a last resort and to be avoided. Of course in gliders and airplanes with power failures, they're not an option. So to me, being prepared for an emergency includes being able to hit the aim point under suboptimal conditions. For many pilots that thought process only occurs when practicing short field landings.

 

[RyanShort1]

How so?

Well, for instance, yes, the surface may be different than what you are landing on in an emergency, but practicing the technique of a soft-field landing often enough will still give you better results than not having the muscle memory to do it under stress. Things you've done repeatedly give you more room in the brain for other points of finesse, like maybe noticing a surface imperfection and altering your landing path instead of just trying to remember how to do it.

My gut tells me you know that, but are trying too hard to play devil's advocate.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Because many pilots' normal landing is touching down somewhere on the 8000' runway and stopping before the end. And "planning for every landing to be a go around until proven otherwise."

I firmly believe that the myth that "go arounds are free," kills pilots. And leads to ****ty landing skills. I had an instructor who taught me that if there's something wrong with your approach, you fix it, and you land where you intended to land. Go arounds were a last resort and to be avoided. Of course in gliders and airplanes with power failures, they're not an option. So to me, being prepared for an emergency includes being able to hit the aim point under suboptimal conditions. For many pilots that thought process only occurs when practicing short field landings.

I agree with the bolder portion 100%. I just don’t think resorting to “abnormal” technique is going to happen in an emergency.

As far as go around, I agree to a point…you need to be able to land precisely every time, but I think the emphasis needs to be on making approaches that don’t need to be fixed rather than avoiding go around. And that goes back to making precision landings on ever6 landing, not just practicing them once in a while.

Well, for instance, yes, the surface may be different than what you are landing on in an emergency, but practicing the technique of a soft-field landing often enough will still give you better results than not having the muscle memory to do it under stress. Things you've done repeatedly give you more room in the brain for other points of finesse.

Does the technique for soft fields not include application of power? If I’ve got the ability to add power on demand, I’m going to pick something other than a soft field. If I have to commit to a soft field without power, it’s energy management, not soft field technique, that’s going to control my impact.

And let’s be clear on what requires soft field technique…none of the off-airport operations I’ve ever conducted have required soft field technique. And from what I HAVE seen and experienced with soft fields, it’s only really required if you want to either taxi clear or take off again, neither of which should be a consideration for an emergency landing.

 

[RyanShort1]

Does the technique for soft fields not include application of power? If I’ve got the ability to add power on demand, I’m going to pick something other than a soft field. If I have to commit to a soft field without power, it’s energy management, not soft field technique, that’s going to control my impact.

It could affect one's judgment call, for instance if trapped by weather. A soft field is ALWAYS an option for me, vs trying harder to get to a runway. And yes, energy management is pretty critical, but I see that you really, really want to play devils advocate and I don't feel like playing back.

 

[ateamer]

Quarterly. I do power on and off stalls, simulated engine loss, emergency descent, and no-flaps landings. When I can grab a safety pilot or CFI, I add unusual attitudes.

In the RV-8, half or more of my landings were a power-off 180 flown to commercial standards.

I also self-debrief every flight and keep notes on what to improve, then follow through with training/practice and a comparison of performance a couple weeks later.

 

[Lindberg]

As far as go around, I agree to a point…you need to be able to land precisely every time, but I think the emphasis needs to be on making approaches that don’t need to be fixed rather than avoiding go around. And that goes back to making precision landings on ever6 landing, not just practicing them once in a while.

Of course it's better to do it right every time. But the broader point is being able to do it every time. I have seen some CFIs who teach their students to "go around early and often," which I consider really bad training. Turning based too early, over/undershooting final by a bit, adding flaps too late/early, etc. are to be avoided, but they are not reasons to go around.

 

[172andyou]

I think the emphasis needs to be on making approaches that don’t need to be fixed rather than avoiding go around

All approaches require a million little fixes. The key is to make them before they accumulate into a big one at the end.

 

[Mooney Fan]

With the recent horrible accident in California it got me thinking. Now many practice short/soft field take off and landings, engine out, and the various required maneuvers after receiving a PPL?

I had a nifty go around the other day. On landing I was a little high, out of airspeed and yoke already just about full aft.

Could have saved it with a blurp of power but instead full power, lower the pitch, and off I went.

Going around should be in everyones toolbag. Be ready to make it happen.

 

[Lindberg]

On landing I was a little high, out of airspeed and yoke already just about full aft.

How could you be both high and out of airspeed? And yoke full aft while high? Flared above ground effect?
And if you could have easily saved it, why not? After all, there's no "go around" option if you have an engine failure on climb out.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Dan Gryder has done some testing suggesting otherwise.

Which leads me to believe my fellow PoAers that much more.

Or are you making a joke about how he crashed into a cornfield a couple years ago?

I firmly believe that the myth that "go arounds are free," kills pilots. And leads to ****ty landing skills. I had an instructor who taught me that if there's something wrong with your approach, you fix it, and you land where you intended to land. Go arounds were a last resort and to be avoided.

Of course it's better to do it right every time. But the broader point is being able to do it every time. I have seen some CFIs who teach their students to "go around early and often," which I consider really bad training. Turning based too early, over/undershooting final by a bit, adding flaps too late/early, etc. are to be avoided, but they are not reasons to go around.

All approaches require a million little fixes. The key is to make them before the accumulate into a big one at the end.

Y'know... There are some arguments we've had at PoA over the years where there are very good points in both directions, and this looks like it could turn into one of those, but has led me to what I think I will do (and if I ever get around to getting my CFI, teach).

Of course if you go around for every stupid little thing, that will hurt you when you don't have the option to go around (after engine failure). You need to learn how to fix a bad approach.

On the other hand, a lot of GA pilots will get into an accident after trying to force an approach that is bad. So we can't just say "going around leads to ****ty landing skills" as those students will be the ones who end up in landing accidents in normal operations.

If we had to choose one of the two, I'd rather have my students have better skills in normal operations than emergency operations, given the relative incidence of each. However, I think there's a middle ground.

It's kind of like the "Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" during a landing approach vs. the more intuitive "power for airspeed, pitch for altitude". There have been plenty of arguments as to how it should be taught, but I really like what I saw here on PoA once: Power controls how much total energy you have, pitch controls how you split it between airspeed and altitude.

In the professional flying world, stabilized approaches are a big thing. Most carriers have some variation of callouts at 1000 and/or 500 feet if the stabilized approach criteria are met. I've heard of "1000 feet, configured" followed by "500 feet, stable"; stable callouts at one or both, and some other stuff. Criteria generally involve being within a particular window of airspeeds, within a dot on glidepath and localizer, power settings in a certain window, aircraft configured properly, and less than 1000 fpm descent. If the criteria aren't met, the callout is some variation of "1000 feet, unstable, go around" and a go around is supposed to be performed.

Unfortunately, human factors becomes an issue. Nobody wants to try to explain to the pax why they went around, they want to get their pax on the ground and on their way to their connecting flights. I have talked with people in the know who have told me that at large carriers about 1% of approaches are unstable, but only about 2-3% of "unstable" approaches result in a go-around, because the approach can still be easily saved as early as those calls are being made.

So, there is a shift happening. I believe FedEx (?) has moved to their stable/go-around final decision being moved down to 300 feet, and the CitationJet Pilots Association has what I think the entire industry will end up standardizing on eventually: 1000, 500, and 200 foot checks, but with the idea that correcting can happen except at 200 feet (I think the carriers that fly widebodies are more likely to do this at 300 feet like FedEx). You call "1000 feet, configured" if you're configured to land, or repeat "Gear, Gear" or "Flaps, Flaps" until you have the offending item corrected. At 500 feet, you meet all the criteria and call "500 feet, stable" or you repeat the offending parameter until it is corrected (Airspeed, Centerline, Glidepath, Power, Vertical Speed, etc). At 200 feet, you either have everything within parameters and call "Continue" or you call and perform "Go Around".

Finally, (and to be clear, I don't think this is in CJP's system) the criteria don't need to be the same at every point. If you need to be between Vref and Vref+15 at 200 feet, it's probably still safe to be at Vref+25 at 500 feet and Vref+40 at 1000 feet or something like that (this depends on aircraft type, of course). Knowing what the parameters are for an uncorrectable approach at 500 or 1000 can result in an earlier, safer go-around on a really bad approach.

So, how do we apply this to GA? We should have gear down prior to descending from 1,000 feet and be at no more than Vfe+10 or something like that (again, highly dependent on aircraft type). We should probably be fully configured at 500 feet and be within a reasonable number of knots of our landing speed. At 200 feet, we should be within maybe 5 knots of landing speed. For all of the above, we should be reasonably close to the desired flight path (what is "reasonable" is TBD based on the operation and aircraft type) and <1000 fpm descent.

Done right, this means that we won't be doing a ridiculous number of go-arounds, but it also means that we'll know when a go-around really is warranted (rare). During emergency drills/practice, there can be some go-arounds skipped on bad approaches, but it should then be noted after landing how that would have negatively affected a real emergency - 10 knots fast can be enough to kill people instead of just floating down the runway, for example. Basically, just ensure that the student isn't learning the wrong lesson (normalization of deviance) because they continued a bad approach and didn't die (this time).

 

[Nikhiln25]

Which leads me to believe my fellow PoAers that much more.

Or are you making a joke about how he crashed into a cornfield a couple years ago?



Y'know... There are some arguments we've had at PoA over the years where there are very good points in both directions, and this looks like it could turn into one of those, but has led me to what I think I will do (and if I ever get around to getting my CFI, teach).

Of course if you go around for every stupid little thing, that will hurt you when you don't have the option to go around (after engine failure). You need to learn how to fix a bad approach.

On the other hand, a lot of GA pilots will get into an accident after trying to force an approach that is bad. So we can't just say "going around leads to ****ty landing skills" as those students will be the ones who end up in landing accidents in normal operations.

If we had to choose one of the two, I'd rather have my students have better skills in normal operations than emergency operations, given the relative incidence of each. However, I think there's a middle ground.

It's kind of like the "Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" during a landing approach vs. the more intuitive "power for airspeed, pitch for altitude". There have been plenty of arguments as to how it should be taught, but I really like what I saw here on PoA once: Power controls how much total energy you have, pitch controls how you split it between airspeed and altitude.

In the professional flying world, stabilized approaches are a big thing. Most carriers have some variation of callouts at 1000 and/or 500 feet if the stabilized approach criteria are met. I've heard of "1000 feet, configured" followed by "500 feet, stable"; stable callouts at one or both, and some other stuff. Criteria generally involve being within a particular window of airspeeds, within a dot on glidepath and localizer, power settings in a certain window, aircraft configured properly, and less than 1000 fpm descent. If the criteria aren't met, the callout is some variation of "1000 feet, unstable, go around" and a go around is supposed to be performed.

Unfortunately, human factors becomes an issue. Nobody wants to try to explain to the pax why they went around, they want to get their pax on the ground and on their way to their connecting flights. I have talked with people in the know who have told me that at large carriers about 1% of approaches are unstable, but only about 2-3% of "unstable" approaches result in a go-around, because the approach can still be easily saved as early as those calls are being made.

So, there is a shift happening. I believe FedEx (?) has moved to their stable/go-around final decision being moved down to 300 feet, and the CitationJet Pilots Association has what I think the entire industry will end up standardizing on eventually: 1000, 500, and 200 foot checks, but with the idea that correcting can happen except at 200 feet (I think the carriers that fly widebodies are more likely to do this at 300 feet like FedEx). You call "1000 feet, configured" if you're configured to land, or repeat "Gear, Gear" or "Flaps, Flaps" until you have the offending item corrected. At 500 feet, you meet all the criteria and call "500 feet, stable" or you repeat the offending parameter until it is corrected (Airspeed, Centerline, Glidepath, Power, Vertical Speed, etc). At 200 feet, you either have everything within parameters and call "Continue" or you call and perform "Go Around".

Finally, (and to be clear, I don't think this is in CJP's system) the criteria don't need to be the same at every point. If you need to be between Vref and Vref+15 at 200 feet, it's probably still safe to be at Vref+25 at 500 feet and Vref+40 at 1000 feet or something like that (this depends on aircraft type, of course). Knowing what the parameters are for an uncorrectable approach at 500 or 1000 can result in an earlier, safer go-around on a really bad approach.

So, how do we apply this to GA? We should have gear down prior to descending from 1,000 feet and be at no more than Vfe+10 or something like that (again, highly dependent on aircraft type). We should probably be fully configured at 500 feet and be within a reasonable number of knots of our landing speed. At 200 feet, we should be within maybe 5 knots of landing speed. For all of the above, we should be reasonably close to the desired flight path (what is "reasonable" is TBD based on the operation and aircraft type) and <1000 fpm descent.

Done right, this means that we won't be doing a ridiculous number of go-arounds, but it also means that we'll know when a go-around really is warranted (rare). During emergency drills/practice, there can be some go-arounds skipped on bad approaches, but it should then be noted after landing how that would have negatively affected a real emergency - 10 knots fast can be enough to kill people instead of just floating down the runway, for example. Basically, just ensure that the student isn't learning the wrong lesson (normalization of deviance) because they continued a bad approach and didn't die (this time).

This is great. On the Behind the Prop podcast during my student pilot days one of the host said that they are required to call out 500 and landing accepted (something like that), meaning you are configured stable and where you need to be. I’ve been practicing that since I heard it. It’s a great practice to add to situational awareness of your approach and also practicing to improve it

 

[laserranger]

When I'm up practicing I try to fit in at least one TO&L of each "type" (normal/short/soft).
Haven't practiced emergencies since my checkride, but that was only a few months ago.

At my level of experience (70 hrs) I'm not super comfortable doing emergency practice solo. Thus I've decided I'm going to go up with a CFI every year (or maybe 2-3 times a year) and do a mock BFR to keep that stuff fresh. At least until I have more time under my belt.

 

[172andyou]

Which leads me to believe my fellow PoAers that much more.

Or are you making a joke about how he crashed into a cornfield a couple years ago?

Yes, that's the testing I was referring to.

 

[Albany Tom]

Just to tie the thread fragments together, I believe one of the important distinctions is to practice emergencies, if you're going to, on purpose.

 

[Mooney Fan]

How could you be both high and out of airspeed? And yoke full aft while high? Flared above ground effect?
And if you could have easily saved it, why not? After all, there's no "go around" option if you have an engine failure on climb out.

Why settle for a "save" when you can go around?

 

[Lndwarrior]

I pull power to idle abeam the numbers, do a 180 to line up, then slip to the threshold. If you keep it tight, not much difference between idle and power off in my airplane. I let the nose drop and carry extra speed in the turn, so there is no risk of a stall. That's what kills people.
Checklists are great, but it all happens very fast in a real event. I found that flying the plane took 100% of my time and focus.
I recommend practicing the turn from lower than typical pattern altitude. I was at 700' abeam the numbers when I had my real event.

....I recommend practicing the turn from lower than typical pattern altitude.

And this is why I come here. I practice emergencies regularly. 90% of all my landings in 30 years have been power-off/idle 180's. Yet, I've never practiced from a lower altitude because it never crossed my mind. I will now. Thank you for posting this little gem!

No matter how much you study, no matter how many hours you fly, and no matter how many years, there is always something new to learn about this aviation thing.

 

[Ed Haywood]

....I recommend practicing the turn from lower than typical pattern altitude.

And this is why I come here. I practice emergencies regularly. 90% of all my landings in 30 years have been power-off/idle 180's. Yet, I've never practiced from a lower altitude because it never crossed my mind. I will now. Thank you for posting this little gem!

No matter how much you study, no matter how many hours you fly, and no matter how many years, there is always something new to learn about this aviation thing.

Glad it was helpful to you, thanks for saying so. To elaborate a bit, with loss of power you continue to descend while in the downwind. Easy to forget that and find yourself lower than planned when abeam the touchdown point. Important to know your minimum altitude to do a 180. Just like the impossible turn, have a hard number you won't go below.

 

[flyingron]

I don't need to practice emergencies. I've had enough real ones.

Amusingly, the story telling does have a positive effect. We had a 150 in our club blown over by a C-130 in Wilmingon (Delaware). Our member was uninjured as he was there inverted in the plane... until he released his seat belt and fell on his head. Apparently, my stepson had heard this story and when his father rolled his car with the two kids in the back, Ian remembered to brace himself before releasing his belt and did the same for his sister.