So just how common IS a "power off landing"?

Shawn

Shawn

En-Route
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,354
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Shawn
...unintentionally that is. I am student pilot that will hopefully be wrapped up by the end of summer with the goal of eventually getting into my own plane. I understand the concepts making sure you are always in a position that you can "glide" to a safe landing in the event of an engine failure even being over inhospitable terrain or water...but how common is that really? Who here was ever been in that situation and landed uneventfully (or eventfully!) due to good and proper emergency planning with an actual engine failure?

Not asking about the why you should and the practice of it...but more if it is simply the ultimate safety backup?...or is it like carrying a spare tire in your car cuz you WILL get a flat sometime in your life?
 
Just one with an engine totally TU for me and that's enough, thanks. Glad I was well trained for it though.

They're fun, and engine out sims are easy to practice plus, overlap much of your other flight training anyway, so they can make the difference between an ugly ending to a very rare real event or a good pilot story....

Regarding your view towards inhospitable terrain, by definition there is no really safe landing site, no matter how well you glide. It's then a matter of cutting your losses as safely as possible.

Shawn said:
...unintentionally that is. I am student pilot that will hopefully be wrapped up by the end of summer with the goal of eventually getting into my own plane. I understand the concepts making sure you are always in a position that you can "glide" to a safe landing in the event of an engine failure even being over inhospitable terrain or water...but how common is that really? Who here was ever been in that situation and landed uneventfully (or eventfully!) due to good and proper emergency planning with an actual engine failure?

Not asking about the why you should and the practice of it...but more if it is simply the ultimate safety backup?...or is it like carrying a spare tire in your car cuz you WILL get a flat sometime in your life?
Click to expand...
 
Final approach always should be power off.

At any given point from crosswind on, you should be able to glide back to the runway, no exceptions. If you can't = fail

If you drag it in on final with power = fail

Energy management is KING
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Final approach always should be power off.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you're flying. For most small planes the above is true.
At any given point from crosswind on, you should be able to glide back to the runway, no exceptions. If you can't = fail
Click to expand...
This is fine for pattern work (of course, you might hit some part of the runway but it might not be a usable part of it.
If you drag it in on final with power = fail
Click to expand...
No way to do certain approaches: traffic ahead of you in the pattern, ATC direction, trying to fly an ILS glide slope. Flying approaches with power on is NOT dragging it in. Dragging it in sorta implies being on the backside of the power curve which is indeed poor energy management.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Final approach always should be power off.

At any given point from crosswind on, you should be able to glide back to the runway, no exceptions. If you can't = fail

If you drag it in on final with power = fail

Energy management is KING
Click to expand...

True for most singles and none of the multis I have flown and only in VMC without traffic conflicts.
 
No way to do certain approaches: traffic ahead of you in the pattern, ATC direction, trying to fly an ILS glide slope. Flying approaches with power on is NOT dragging it in. Dragging it in sorta implies being on the backside of the power curve which is indeed poor energy management.[/QUOTE]

Flying on the backside of the power curve is a common shortfield approach technique and requires precise energy management. Don
 
The OP asked about UNintentional power-off landings, i.e., engine failure, not the normal light single practice of closing the throttle when the landing is assured. To that question, I would say they are far from common, but happen enough that one should maintain one's proficiency in that emergency procedure. You could go through the NTSB accident reports to get an idea of how often they happen and end in an accident, but there are no doubt other engine failures which do not end in an accident.

Personally, in about 6500 hours in light single-engine airplanes, I have yet to experience this, but I still practice for it. OTOH, I know of people with far less single-engine time than that who have had two or three. :dunno:
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Final approach always should be power off.

At any given point from crosswind on, you should be able to glide back to the runway, no exceptions. If you can't = fail

If you drag it in on final with power = fail

Energy management is KING
Click to expand...

While I would like to fly a close base to final and do as you say, my instructor has me trained to intercept the VASI lights at a certain point where there is no way I would be able to glide to the runway doing this. I would end up in a hillside in the trees without some power on final.

I have always felt like I would feel safer coming into a steeper approach and keeping it tight, but that is something I will have to wait until my training is complete to pursue.

On simulated engine outs in the pattern I have to tighten up the pattern a good bit.


QUESTION FOR EVERYONE: How much of a difference is there with the engine literally OFF compared to pulled to idle? All of my training so far has been pulled to idle.
 
JasonM said:
QUESTION FOR EVERYONE: How much of a difference is there with the engine literally OFF compared to pulled to idle? All of my training so far has been pulled to idle.
Click to expand...
Not a significant difference, and certainly not enough to justify completely killing the engine in a light single during training -- other than increasing the stress and risk factors.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not a significant difference, and certainly not enough to justify completely killing the engine in a light single during training -- other than increasing the stress and risk factors.
Click to expand...

Also gets into stopped vs windmilling prop, and can you stop the prop, should you stop it etc...
 
Dean V said:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13672

Running out of fuel and engine failures are both among the leading causes of aircraft accidents.
Click to expand...
That's fatal accidents, not total accidents, and fatals comprise only a fraction of the total.

Always having enough fuel will reduce your chances of having to use your emergency landing skills significantly.
Click to expand...
Amen, Brother Dean.

If you totaled the hours of all the aircraft piston engines operating, there is one engine failure in flight each 100,000 hours.
Click to expand...
Can you share the source of that statistic? And does that statistic include all power losses (i.e., including fuel starvation due to pilot error) or just material failures of the propulsion system?
 
Shawn said:
Not asking about the why you should and the practice of it...but more if it is simply the ultimate safety backup?...or is it like carrying a spare tire in your car cuz you WILL get a flat sometime in your life?
Click to expand...

That's a good analogy. Except you can change 'will' to 'might'. Lots of aviators will fly a lifetime and never have to make an off-airport landing.

Consider that out of all the time you spend flying, 90% or more of that time if the engine were to fail, you have plenty of good locations to set the plane down without killing anyone. It would suck to die/kill people because you screwed up. So keep practicing.
 
Geico266 said:
I've had 3, but that was flying ultra lights with 2 cycle engines.
Click to expand...

We had an instructor who claimed more than 200 total or partial engine failures.

However he was a B-17 pilot and never gave me a strait answer as to how many had been shot off:lol:
 
dell30rb said:
That's a good analogy. Except you can change 'will' to 'might'. Lots of aviators will fly a lifetime and never have to make an off-airport landing.

Consider that out of all the time you spend flying, 90% or more of that time if the engine were to fail, you have plenty of good locations to set the plane down without killing anyone. It would suck to die/kill people because you screwed up. So keep practicing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you WILL get a flat one day, and it would be a real inconvenience to not have a spare.

You MIGHT suffer a total loss of engine power, and it could kill you not to be ready, the inconvenience is a given even with the best case outcome.
 
JasonM said:
While I would like to fly a close base to final and do as you say, my instructor has me trained to intercept the VASI lights at a certain point where there is no way I would be able to glide to the runway doing this. I would end up in a hillside in the trees without some power on final.
Click to expand...

You may wish to review the AIM for the relevant discussion about approaches where there is a visual glideslope provided. Afterwards, turn to this page and have a ground discussion with your CFI before your next flight.
 
JasonM said:
While I would like to fly a close base to final and do as you say, my instructor has me trained to intercept the VASI lights at a certain point where there is no way I would be able to glide to the runway doing this. I would end up in a hillside in the trees without some power on final.

I have always felt like I would feel safer coming into a steeper approach and keeping it tight, but that is something I will have to wait until my training is complete to pursue.
Click to expand...

The reason your instructor has you doing this is because its harder for you to screw up. The possibility of engine failure in the minute or so you are out of gliding distance is extremely slim.

This is the norm for training these days as the flight training community has basically decided that the risk of a pilot screwing up a tight pattern is higher than the engine failing on the other type of approach.
 
dell30rb said:
The reason your instructor has you doing this is because its harder for you to screw up. The possibility of engine failure in the minute or so you are out of gliding distance is extremely slim.

This is the norm for training these days as the flight training community has basically decided that the risk of a pilot screwing up a tight pattern is higher than the engine failing on the other type of approach.
Click to expand...

That's BS. Tell me how a power off approach is dangerous. The power off full flap approach was the normal approach taught up until the early 80's. I know the norm now is the so called stabilized approach and most are taught using too much airspeed on final in the interest of "safety". My normal landing is made power off before the base turn traffic permitting. I've had one total engine failure on take off and two partial failures in 3000hrs. Don
 
yakdriver said:
That's BS. ... the norm now is the so called stabilized approach and most are taught using too much airspeed on final in the interest of "safety".
Click to expand...

Not to misinterpret, but I did my training in the early 60's and a HIGH Vref was taught then too (65kt / 75mph in a C-150 + margins for gusts). No wonder float mitigation must also be taught.

But, to Don's point, horrible names were attached to people that didn't have the throttle on the idle stops from mid-point downwind to turn-off on the taxiway post-landing (except for the occasional clearing power) back then
 
yakdriver said:
That's BS.
Click to expand...
No, it's a fact. The FAA studied the landing accident data very carefully back in the 70's, and that's the conclusion to which they came -- lots more accidents due to botched power-off approaches than due to engine failures in the traffic pattern. As a result, they changed their recommendation for the "normal" approach in light singles from the power-off/180 dating from the 1920's when OX-5 engines were the norm (and they failed a lot) to the partial-power, VFR stabilized approach. Landing accident rates went down significantly over the next decade or so, and that convinced them to stick with that recommendation, which today remains their recommended "normal" landing technique for light singles.

And please don't confuse the VFR Stabilized Approach for light planes described in FAA publications with the Turbine Aircraft Stabilized Approach. The fundamental idea of having the plane stabilized in configuration and speed at some point in the approach and using power to control descent rate while trimming for desired airspeed is the same, but the details are very different. For those who don't understand what that term means, I suggest a slow and careful read through the following:
http://www.paragonair.com/public/doc.../P8740-48.html
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2000/approach0011.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/leadingedg..._199047-1.html
...and the references Mr. Turner cites in his AvWeb article. You can also read what it says in the PTS for Private and Commercial on the "Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing" tasks.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the OP's question about how often engines fail, but drifting threads are a part of life on PoA.
 
That's right. I forgot to mention the clearing power check around the base to final leg. My primary instructor was always pulling the power on me and several times I thought he was going to let me land we got so close to the ground. I had it all lined up with a dirt road on top of a ridge one day and was just about to flare when we powered up. Maybe why I'm pretty good at spot landings today. Don
 
My goal is to always have the approach lined up and proper glide path so I can pull power all the way back to idle shortly after turning final. I only add power when necessary (wind, losing alt. too quickly etc.)
 
yakdriver said:
That's BS. Tell me how a power off approach is dangerous. The power off full flap approach was the normal approach taught up until the early 80's. I know the norm now is the so called stabilized approach and most are taught using too much airspeed on final in the interest of "safety". My normal landing is made power off before the base turn traffic permitting. I've had one total engine failure on take off and two partial failures in 3000hrs. Don
Click to expand...

Ron's post pretty much summed it up. And I believe the statistics.

My personal preference is a power off approach. But i'll fly a partial power "trust the engine" approach sometimes. Instrument approaches etc...
 
i rarely take off with an engine these days...so most of my approaches are power off
 
tonycondon said:
i rarely take off with an engine these days...so most of my approaches are power off
Click to expand...
Maybe you rarely take off with an engine in your aircraft, but you do take off with an engine somewhere.

Unless you're in 50 MPH winds with lots of thermals and you tie your tow rope to the windsock.
 
Been flying since 1985. I've had two engine failures in a piston single. I shut down an engine on a piston twin and was unable to restart another. I've shut down 3 jet engines.
 
We were also flying 600' patterns about half the size of those used now. And many of the trainers didn't have flaps.

yakdriver said:
That's BS. Tell me how a power off approach is dangerous. The power off full flap approach was the normal approach taught up until the early 80's. I know the norm now is the so called stabilized approach and most are taught using too much airspeed on final in the interest of "safety". My normal landing is made power off before the base turn traffic permitting. I've had one total engine failure on take off and two partial failures in 3000hrs. Don
Click to expand...
 
I still fly a tight pattern at 800-1000agl traffic permitting. Of course most of the airplanes I fly are older than me ( I'm 62 ) so I guess I just fly the old fashion way. And for sure I will fly a longer pattern or a long straight in at larger airports when required. But with all the practice I get I have no doubt that I can put an airplane down within 50' of a spot I pick out. Don
 
Dean V said:
Ron, I came up with that figure on line, maybe from Lycoming. My recollection was it was only for a material engine failures. I will try to re-research this number and post it.
Click to expand...
Thanks -- it would be a good number to have handy if it can be documented.
 
Skylane81E said:
True for most singles and none of the multis I have flown and only in VMC without traffic conflicts.
Click to expand...

Seems Bob Hoover managed to not only land a cabin class twin with no power, but also did a loop and landed very precisely. Think asking the average twin pilot to simply land without power on ain't that big of a request.

Also can be done turbine aircraft too, I commonly land 0trq base to final in a C208B
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Seems Bob Hoover managed to not only land a cabin class twin with no power, but also did a loop and landed very precisely. Think asking the average twin pilot to simply land without power on ain't that big of a request.
Click to expand...
If the average twin pilot had the skill of Bob Hoover at his best, I might think that. However, since my experience giving recurrent training suggests the average nonprofessional twin pilot can barely handle the plane safely with one engine running, I'm not ready to suggest that approaches with both engines at idle be the norm for light twin pilots. YMMV.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Seems Bob Hoover managed to not only land a cabin class twin with no power, but also did a loop and landed very precisely. Think asking the average twin pilot to simply land without power on ain't that big of a request.

Also can be done turbine aircraft too, I commonly land 0trq base to final in a C208B
Click to expand...

Lets see the attitude of the non pilot passengers when you do a power off approach in a Navajo, just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea
 
I knoe one guy who has near 20 forced off-field landings. He flies ultra lights, fat ultra light LSAs, a Rans S-12, and a gyro copter. Nothing with an aircraft engine.
 
Ron Levy said:
If the average twin pilot had the skill of Bob Hoover at his best, I might think that. However, since my experience giving recurrent training suggests the average nonprofessional twin pilot can barely handle the plane safely with one engine running, I'm not ready to suggest that approaches with both engines at idle be the norm for light twin pilots. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm not expecting Dr. Smith and family to pull power and exicute a roll or loop and touch down on a dime.

But if the guy can't even handle a landing with no power, maybe you should suggest he sell his twin and get a 172 or something.

Basically if Dr. Smith runs out of fuel (not that uncommon) he's just dead as he is unable to land his aircraft without power??






Skylane81E said:
Lets see the attitude of the non pilot passengers when you do a power off approach in a Navajo, just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea
Click to expand...

Obviously you arnt doing a practice engine failure with pax onboard, common sense eh?
 
Last edited:
38 yrs, 1800 civilian hours, 1 unintentional power off landing.
2500 military hours, but we always had extra engines to spare when one or more shut down.

Engine power rolled back, at traffic pattern altitude on departure.
Power off engine windmilling glide back to the runway.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Like I said, I'm not expecting Dr. Smith and family to pull power and exicute a roll or loop and touch down on a dime.

But if the guy can't even handle a landing with no power, maybe you should suggest he sell his twin and get a 172 or something.

Basically if Dr. Smith runs out of fuel (not that uncommon) he's just dead as he is unable to land his aircraft without power??
Click to expand...
None of that has anything to do with how you make normal approaches to land, not to mention that if you want to do a 180/power-off approach in something like a Navajo, you better start at about twice normal TPA, and you'll be falling through the regular pattern like a rock -- not something I would say is a good idea anywhere that there might be another plane around. And that doesn't even begin to address the very low incidence of light twins running out of gas.

All in all, doing power-off approaches to land in light twin is too much like having combat troops practice bleeding for my taste, but YMMV.
 
Ron Levy said:
None of that has anything to do with how you make normal approaches to land, not to mention that if you want to do a 180/power-off approach in something like a Navajo, you better start at about twice normal TPA, and you'll be falling through the regular pattern like a rock -- not something I would say is a good idea anywhere that there might be another plane around. And that doesn't even begin to address the very low incidence of light twins running out of gas.

All in all, doing power-off approaches to land in light twin is too much like having combat troops practice bleeding for my taste, but YMMV.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even in ground effect the term "like a rock" applies once those throttles close
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top