Landing Without Engine Power

TheTraveler said:
I should note that there is also a hint of amazement and fascination as well. To think of someone safely landing a jet or any large, heavy aircraft without running engines is really amazing to me.
Click to expand...
It's pretty amazing to anyone who's flown a jet or large, heavy aircraft, too, and if you study the record, it rarely ends well. While you've heard of two incidents above (Air Transat Airbus and Air Canada 767) with a good outcome, there are many more which ended badly, like Avianca 018, the United DC-8 in Oregon, etc.
 
SteveinIndy said:
This is going to sound like a stupid question but is there such a thing as an electrically controlled pitch mechanism for props? I have never heard of nor seen one but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Click to expand...

MT props have electric controllers. Airmaster, and Wood comp only have electric controllers.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's pretty amazing to anyone who's flown a jet or large, heavy aircraft, too, and if you study the record, it rarely ends well. While you've heard of two incidents above (Air Transat Airbus and Air Canada 767) with a good outcome, there are many more which ended badly, like Avianca 018, the United DC-8 in Oregon, etc.
Click to expand...

Many light planes with engines out end badly also because the pilots don't train for the engine quitting. There is a difference between an engine idling and no engine. If you are unprepared for the difference it is not going to end well.

When all else fails, fly the airplane.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I care about damage to the aircraft both becau$e of co$t I will pay, and because lesser damage, hopefully means lesser injuries to people.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should rephrase.

I care about the aircraft, but much less than I care about others in the aircraft. And if there is a way to land the aircraft in an emergency that would say, damage the wings but keep the fuselage in tact, then I really don't care how much that damage to the wings costs.

I care about the cost of damage infinitely less than the safety and lives of those onboard.

I can only hope that should such a situation ever arise, I am educated and prepared enough to make the correct decisions and lead to a safe outcome.
 
Geico266 said:
Many light planes with engines out end badly also because the pilots don't train for the engine quitting. There is a difference between an engine idling and no engine. If you are unprepared for the difference it is not going to end well.

When all else fails, fly the airplane.
Click to expand...

During my primary training my CFI shut the fuel off in the 152 we were flying abeam the numbers just as I was setting the first notch of flaps. I went through the emergency checklist and found the fuel valve closed but he said leave it closed and land, so I have experienced a landing with the engine windmilling but I am sure it is quite different in a 152 compared to the Arrow. Not sure this was an acceptable practice but I am happy for the experience.

I did have an engine out in a Barron but that is a different story.
 
why is this posed as a hypothetical question? How do you get a license without doing some engine-out landings?
 
tmyers said:
During my primary training my CFI shut the fuel off in the 152 we were flying abeam the numbers just as I was setting the first notch of flaps. I went through the emergency checklist and found the fuel valve closed but he said leave it closed and land, so I have experienced a landing with the engine windmilling but I am sure it is quite different in a 152 compared to the Arrow. Not sure this was an acceptable practice...
Click to expand...
It is not, in the FAA's eyes or mine. Just imagine what would happen if some dodo pulled out on the runway in front of you. :hairraise:
 
JHW said:
why is this posed as a hypothetical question? How do you get a license without doing some engine-out landings?
Click to expand...
There's simulated engine-out, and then there's real engine-out. You get plenty of the first in training, but usually none of the second.
 
JHW said:
why is this posed as a hypothetical question? How do you get a license without doing some engine-out landings?
Click to expand...

A few things...

1. I don't have a license, I'm still a student.

2. Although I will have to do this prior to getting my ticket, this provides me with some very important real life feedback.

As with many things, the real-life scenario can be far different than the learning and practicing scenario. I suspected this, and many have confirmed in various ways. It's just another way to prepare myself.
 
Ron Levy said:
It is not, in the FAA's eyes or mine. Just imagine what would happen if some dodo pulled out on the runway in front of you. :hairraise:
Click to expand...

Agreed!!!!

I was shocked but was glad to know that I didn't panic. When it happened for real (referring to the Baron) I didn't panic either. Just flying the airplane was a natural response to the situation.
 
tmyers said:
Agreed!!!!

I was shocked but was glad to know that I didn't panic. When it happened for real (referring to the Baron) I didn't panic either. Just flying the airplane was a natural response to the situation.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to do it in a twin, above 3000 AGL or so, but below that, mixture or throttle, and throttle only if really close to the ground or slow. In a single, it's throttle only. Note that restart should be nearly instantaneous with mixture, but may be delayed considerably if the fuel lines are sucked dry downstream of the valve.
 
Pretty much all planes can be landed that way safely in these conditions.

Some planes are more docile - even superficially similar ones. A 172 is easy, a 182 is harder because of the much heavier nose. But you just practice it a couple times with every new airframe and you get accustomed to it.
 
So for those of you who have had to experience this in real-life, has anyone done it at night?

As far as I know, the only extra preparation that you can do for this at night is to know your nearest airports and terrain. But anything else?

I believe that would scare me a great deal. Doing this in the daytime I can imagine, with the proper practice, preparation, etc. But at night...sorry, I can't imagine that.
 
He can't do it to anyone else, he was killed in a crash at KTYS about a year after I finished my training. I can't imagine trying to explain the pucker factor of knowing the guy that taught you had bought it.
 
Traveler, let me help with some perspective here. Understand that there are many loss-of-power incidents that are resolved with a glide to an airport, field, or other spot that result in no damage or injury and therefore go unreported. If you look at the subset of engine failures that result in an accident, then you can do some looking in the NTSB database and draw some conclusions. A few years ago, when I was editing Aviation Safety, we did just that.

Take two scenarios that seem to cause the most heartburn -- engine out over trees and engine out over water (with a resultant ditching). In both cases, more than 95 percent of the accidents resulted in no serious injury to the occupants AS LONG AS THE AIRPLANE REMAINED UNDER CONTROL. So, through training you have to learn to avoid the stall or spin, which generally come from trying to stretch the glide and getting the airplane too slow.

An engine out generally is NOT an automatic recipe for disaster, but it can bite you on the butt (or elsewhere) if you do not handle the engine out situation correctly.
 
I havent read the entire thread, but most of it, and saw nothing about slighlty opening the doors in case of an off field landing. I was taught to always open them so they arent latched so that if any metal gets bent the doors won't be jammed closed preventing or slowing egress.
 
Ken Ibold said:
An engine out generally is NOT an automatic recipe for disaster, but it can bite you on the butt (or elsewhere) if you do not handle the engine out situation correctly.
Click to expand...

I never assumed that it was, but just as you wrote and as I believe I mentioned earlier, preparation and prevention are what I'm trying to accomplish here. So far, the very helpful responses I believe are preparing me. It doesn't necessarily help in practice, but getting the input from everyone and hearing from those who have gone through this certainly prepares me more mentally, and helps me to learn from others experiences.

BTW...I've got your book (Defying Gravity). It's still a few down in my stack, but it's getting closer every week. I can't wait to read it, I've heard good things!
 
VanDy said:
I havent read the entire thread, but most of it, and saw nothing about slighlty opening the doors in case of an off field landing. I was taught to always open them so they arent latched so that if any metal gets bent the doors won't be jammed closed preventing or slowing egress.
Click to expand...

This is really a taught practice?
 
TheTraveler said:
This is really a taught practice?
Click to expand...
Yes. There is the chance that the crash will warp the frame of the aircraft enough that the door(s) or canopy will not open, and getting out in that case becomes tricky. In the Grumman community, many folks carry a piece of PVC pipe slit lengthwise so they can open the canopy before impact and lay the pipe on the canopy rail to lock it open so it doesn't slide closed on impact. Other people carry various canopy/window breaking tools so they can get out of the door/canopy is jammed shut. It's definitely a survival consideration in light planes.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes. There is the chance that the crash will warp the frame of the aircraft enough that the door(s) or canopy will not open, and getting out in that case becomes tricky. In the Grumman community, many folks carry a piece of PVC pipe slit lengthwise so they can open the canopy before impact and lay the pipe on the canopy rail to lock it open so it doesn't slide closed on impact. Other people carry various canopy/window breaking tools so they can get out of the door/canopy is jammed shut. It's definitely a survival consideration in light planes.
Click to expand...

Not a problem in the Cessna 1&200 series, the doors always pop open when the door frame is bent.

How do you get out of a Grumman when the nose gear breaks off and the aircraft flips over on its back?
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes. There is the chance that the crash will warp the frame of the aircraft enough that the door(s) or canopy will not open, and getting out in that case becomes tricky. In the Grumman community, many folks carry a piece of PVC pipe slit lengthwise so they can open the canopy before impact and lay the pipe on the canopy rail to lock it open so it doesn't slide closed on impact. Other people carry various canopy/window breaking tools so they can get out of the door/canopy is jammed shut. It's definitely a survival consideration in light planes.
Click to expand...


How do you handle passenger-side doors only?
 
Ron Levy said:
The subject was the Mooney Missile, a single. Twins would be another story. That is why piston twins are built with props that feather on loss of oil pressure, and piston singles are built with props that go low pitch. In fact it was the use on that single of an engine/prop off a twin on that triggered my comment, which I thought was clearly limited to SE airplanes, although in retrospect, I suppose some might have thought "SE" stood for "spare engine."
Click to expand...

If the twins are a different story why did you bring them up ?

Remember this thread is a question from a private pilot student, and already you have him flying a F-16 and doing stabilized approaches in twins.

While you are at it, try to tell us what design features in a light civil single aircraft requires it to be flown by dragging it in on the prop?
 
Geico266 said:
You missed the point. An idling engine is still adding thrust or energy to the airplane. They is a difference in performance in gliding an airplane idling and an airplane with a dead engine.
Click to expand...

Actually it often isn't adding any energy to the airplane.
A few years ago a study was done (I forget by who) where they wanted to evaluate to glide performance of several airplanes. Rather than stopping the prop, which does add some drag, they devised a switch on the crank the could detect the small movement of the crankshaft being pulled forward or pushed back. With this switch they could then determine what power setting was required to produce near zero drag or thrust.

The point is if the propellers not turning fast enough to produce an positive airflow vs the speed of the airplane then it is producing drag. True with the engine idling it probably produces slight less drag than a dead engine, however my experience suggests that most pilots can not tell the difference between a windmilling prop and an idling engine.

if your a bit of a math wiz and know the pitch of your prop you can probably determine about what RPM is needed for zero thrust at a given speed. The RPM required is probably higher than your in flight idle speed.

:stirpot:
 
Tom-D said:
Not a problem in the Cessna 1&200 series, the doors always pop open when the door frame is bent.
Click to expand...
Not true. Plenty of examples to the contrary if you review the data.
How do you get out of a Grumman when the nose gear breaks off and the aircraft flips over on its back?
Click to expand...
Assumes facts not in evidence, starting with the nose gear breaking off, which the accident data do not support as a routine occurrence. However, if it does go on its back with the canopy open, the structure is strong enough that it won't collapse, and you'll have plenty of room to crawl out the side. If that fails, there's always the baggage door which an be opened from the inside and though which a 270 lb friend once passed.
 
brcase said:
Actually it often isn't adding any energy to the airplane.
A few years ago a study was done (I forget by who) where they wanted to evaluate to glide performance of several airplanes. Rather than stopping the prop, which does add some drag, they devised a switch on the crank the could detect the small movement of the crankshaft being pulled forward or pushed back. With this switch they could then determine what power setting was required to produce near zero drag or thrust.

The point is if the propellers not turning fast enough to produce an positive airflow vs the speed of the airplane then it is producing drag. True with the engine idling it probably produces slight less drag than a dead engine, however my experience suggests that most pilots can not tell the difference between a windmilling prop and an idling engine.

if your a bit of a math wiz and know the pitch of your prop you can probably determine about what RPM is needed for zero thrust at a given speed. The RPM required is probably higher than your in flight idle speed.

:stirpot:
Click to expand...

Again, the point is those who do not prepare for the difference may stall the plane and die. You are arguing there is no difference, I'm telling you that is simply not true.

Rather than debate hypothetical I am relating my experience in flying airplanes with idling engines and engine out. There is a difference.

In snow and ice road conditions it is much faster to stop your car in neutral rather than drive. The same is true for airplanes. If you want to stop faster after landing turn the engine off. Stand behind an airplane with an idling engine. The forward thrust has to go somewhere.

Come fly with my and we'll go to 10,000' MSL an we will try idling and engine out landings. You tell me which one needs more nose down attitude to maintain best glide. ;)

My experience has been most pilots need to know the difference to survive. ;)
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
How do you get out of a Grumman when the nose gear breaks off and the aircraft flips over on its back?
Click to expand...

It is an issue and you really ought to have a crash axe or hatchet in a Grumman. There was an incident where a family perished in a flipped Tiger that went down in a cornfield years ago. I remember when the AA5 models first came out. My brother was doing some flying over in England where there are many soggy grass fields and in one day he saw two AA5's with snapped off nose-gears.
 
SteveinIndy said:
Oh, OK. Thank you guys. I feel kind of stupid now since there's going to be a MT prop going on my build once I get to that point. :D
Click to expand...

No need to feel stupid, they are exceptional props! :yes:

Just don't damage one. They have to go back to Germany for repairs. :eek: Shipping is kinda pricey, and Germans don't do anything fast. ;)
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Not true. Plenty of examples to the contrary if you review the data.
Assumes facts not in evidence, starting with the nose gear breaking off, which the accident data do not support as a routine occurrence. However, if it does go on its back with the canopy open, the structure is strong enough that it won't collapse, and you'll have plenty of room to crawl out the side. If that fails, there's always the baggage door which an be opened from the inside and though which a 270 lb friend once passed.
Click to expand...

Data again,, ever been to a salvage yard? every fuselage that is there and bent, the doors are open and they will not close, if they are still attached.

Cheap latches on the 100 series can be difficult to latch even when they are not wrecked.
 
To sum up everything, know 'your' airplane :)


-VanDy
 
Silvaire said:
It is an issue and you really ought to have a crash axe or hatchet in a Grumman. There was an incident where a family perished in a flipped Tiger that went down in a cornfield years ago. I remember when the AA5 models first came out. My brother was doing some flying over in England where there are many soggy grass fields and in one day he saw two AA5's with snapped off nose-gears.
Click to expand...
I think every one will agree they are not off field aircraft, otherwise there would be a bush wheel kit for them.

But a crash axe?? what are you going to do with it? Break the plexiglass that is supporting the aircraft while it is on its back?
 
I do it all the time, but my "aircraft" does not have an engine.
 
VanDy said:
I havent read the entire thread, but most of it, and saw nothing about slighlty opening the doors in case of an off field landing. I was taught to always open them so they arent latched so that if any metal gets bent the doors won't be jammed closed preventing or slowing egress.
Click to expand...
or not. On some designs the door is part of the structure, open it and you weaken the fuselage against collapsing and crushing you. On others the door might as well be made of paper so do whatever you want.
 
Tom-D said:
I think every one will agree they are not off field aircraft, otherwise there would be a bush wheel kit for them.

But a crash axe?? what are you going to do with it? Break the plexiglass that is supporting the aircraft while it is on its back?
Click to expand...

The support of the Grumman in an over-turned condition is not the plexiglass, it's the structural arch that forms the rear of the windscreen and to which the sliding canopy attaches. That point is also along the line of the nose and the tip of the vertical stabilizer so, in a normal flip over it should be possible to open the sliding canopy - especially if it had been opened and locked to the in flight position prior to the forced landing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top