P-51 engine out, off field landing pilot discusses

[LongRoadBob]

I did a quick search and didn’t see this video mentioned. First off is the video of the flight, P-51 pilot in large formation, when the engine hiccups, runs again, then fails again, etc. ending up landing “off field”.

Then the pilot being interviewed by another pilot, some months later, and he talks us through what happened, talks us through the video, his reactions, and much more about reactions and what he felt he did right, what he feels he might have done better. Very honest and true voice of experience here, candid. His advice is very enlightening, and the interviewer is really good too did a good job, talking about reaction, prehistoric mind, thinking under pressure. This is really impressive to me.

 

[flyer770]

I remember that it was mentioned in passing but not on its own post. The AOPA safety videos are always worth a watch.

 

[champ driver]

That's a really good video, and I think there's a short video or stills from the side as he's about to slide behind trees and into that field 84649[/ATTACH]

 

[Doug F]

This makes me feel ever so slightly better about my off-field landing. I wish that this vid had been part of my training. It does a great job of explaining how an emergency unfolds. After watching this, I can add a few things to my original posting in Lessons Learned from Nov 2018.

• The place I rented from included a 'no engine out practice without a CFI' clause in their rental agreement. While I did all the standard exercises at least once a month, I didn't practice engine outs. In retrospect, I should have paid for a CFI and done them routinely.
• I should have been more aggressive with my CFI with regards to the thought process associated with engine outs. Things like decision making, field selection, and approach paths would have been discussed in detail. When I tried to get this kind of information, the general response was 'pick a spot and land'.
• Even with more engine out practice, I'm not sure how much it would have helped. There's a lot that happens very quickly once you're below 300' and we never practiced down that low. In every practice I did during training, I was high and fast and just said 'slip the plane and land'. In the actual off-field, I was high and fast and never slipped (that damn task saturation thing was kicking my ass). The only way to practice an engine out for real is to have a real engine out.
  
• The last thing I got from this vid is 'move to Kansas where the land is pancake flat rather than the Appalachians where ain't nothin' flat'.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[N1120A]

He did a pretty amazing job. Some idiots initially second guessed his decision to ditch because he was relatively close to the field, but he clearly points out all the reasons he made the right decision.

 

[Initial Fix]

It was his decision based on the information he had at the time. There will always be pundits arguing decisions. I bet the same folks would have lamented him for trying to make the airport if he came up short with that field there.

 

[dtuuri]

The only way to practice an engine out for real is to have a real engine out.

Well, ok, but you CAN break the practice into two components the rental company would approve (I'm sure):

1. Select a suitable field and plan/manage your power-off descent (glide) to arrive at the key position within two hundred feet, i.e., 800 to 1200 AGL then add in power and climb back to cruise.
2. In the traffic pattern locally, make a power-off approach from the same key position, but aim for 1/3 down the runway until you're sure you can make it to the runway. After the runway appears to be "made", you can make small adjustments that result in landing shorter than the 1/3 point.

This kind of practice will show that there's no need for wild maneuvering nor extreme slipping, in fact, no slipping at all. Just think "key position" at about 1000' AGL and 1/3 down the runway from there. Oh... and NAIL the airspeed! None of this diving for the ground business (unless of course you're on fire).

 

[LongRoadBob]

He did a pretty amazing job. Some idiots initially second guessed his decision to ditch because he was relatively close to the field, but he clearly points out all the reasons he made the right decision.

yeah, he definitely did a great job. My take away was mainly his frank discussion of the thought process. That they both repeatedly mentioned the “hopeful optimistic” part can be a problem, if he had tried as much as he wanted to, to make the field. Also that the engine coming back to life, failing over and over made this more difficult to process than a straight engine out would have (such as when it was back running, him dropping the landing gear when it was still seen as hopeful to make the runway, which caused more problems when that wasn’t going to happen).

Or just, it seemed his biggest regret was not reacting with the very first sign of engine problems. He mentions the mindset of wanting to just attribute it to water in the tanks, which he later said wouldn’t be the case with this aircraft for some reason, but the basic part I took, that part of you that “hopes for the best” wanting to make the runway and possibly not dealing with the reality. He felt he started going for that too much, but that he did dismiss it as unrealistic in time. That’s a big thing I think. Also the “put the monkey in the cage” I feel is a VERY important point. I won’t quote it here but he goes into detail about our prehistoric mind wanting fight or flight, DO something, ANY thing, and a few seconds, or going through a checklist can help cage that and get back to better reactions. His interviewer, a former military pilot, stressed too, they were taught a three second wait if I understood right, to think more “modern” since flying is a modern complex problem.

Also that we all hear about flying the airplane all the way into the crash, he sure did that!

 

[bflynn]

BTW, did research - the airplane, Miss Velma, was rebuilt and appeared in the same show next year. Apparently the airplane has gone through multiple rebuilds over the years to the point that much of it isn't historical material, but in my view, its still a P-51. If the airplane was in service, they would have repaired damage and replaced worn out parts, so perfectly fine to keep doing it now.

 

[Sociald]

Great debrief. Dude had lots going on in a short amount time.

 

[RyanShort1]

Just a reminder though. Pavement > Grass.

 

[NordicDave]

BTW, did research - the airplane, Miss Velma, was rebuilt and appeared in the same show next year. Apparently the airplane has gone through multiple rebuilds over the years to the point that much of it isn't historical material, but in my view, its still a P-51. If the airplane was in service, they would have repaired damage and replaced worn out parts, so perfectly fine to keep doing it now.

BTW, Cal-Pacific Air motive on my field KSNS has all the tooling to make a P-51. Literally if you bring them a data plate, they will build you a Mustang. Amazing to see. Fun to hear across the field when they ground test a P-51 for the first time.

Mustangs are there consistently for 50 & 100 hour inspections. Never realized the amount of FAA required inspections and maintenance every 50 hours. A lot of coin to keep these birds in the air.
https://www.calpacificairmotive.com/