Forced approach - T method vs overhead 360

[Bede]

I've always used the T-method for the forced approach (final key point @ 500' and base key point at 1000'). Naturally that's what I've taught my students. I've done a few flight instructor ratings this summer and the candidates all seemed to have been taught the overhead 360 during their training. I've kind of warmed to the overhead 360 procedure myself.

Which do you prefer? why?

[NotDirty!]

I had always done the T method until I did my instructor rating, when my (ex-air force) class 1 introduced me to the overhead 360. He converted me! I found the overhead 360 much more intuitive, and easier to judge your progress towards your goal. I even successfully used the overhead 360 to guide my suddenly eerily quiet mootoo back to the runway at KORL (in the sim). It has been many years since I practiced any forced approaches, but I would go back to the 360 in a flash if I find myself in a single (or very unlucky multi) again!

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

I had a student who was unable to do a 360 or the circuit method (I guess that's what you're calling the T method).

I finally told him that the methods are shit if they don't work for him. When I stopped making him plan it out, he hit the field every time.

Moral of the story: Sometimes making a plan is a waste of time.

[digits_]

Aren't both those methods the same thing? Even when doing a 360 you will be using some kind of reference to judge your altitude and widen out the circle if necessary, no?

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

Aren't both those methods the same thing? Even when doing a 360 you will be using some kind of reference to judge your altitude and widen out the circle if necessary, no?

The circuit method has a distinct downwind, base, and final.

The 360 method is one continuous turn.

[PilotDAR]

I am very content, and regularly practice, forced approaches to actual landings from more or less overhead. I'll generally fly a left turn for visibility, so there will be a downwind/base/final, but they will often be a continuing turn anyway, modulated to adjust my glide to achieve the desired touchdown point. Committing yourself to a touchdown point from an established point on long final requires more skill. Fine when the pilot has that skill on type, but less opportunity to correct things as you begin to see them being not ideal. When I practice full ahead forced landings, it'll be deliberately high, planning to include a slip to modulate the approach path. If I've judged wrong, and am extra high, the slip will be held into the beginning of the flare.

[youhavecontrol]

I know that new students need some targets to help them develop their assessment skills, but both methods always seemed needlessly complex. I had to teach it as a 360 method, with key points for high/middle/low on the approach. I never really liked the amount of math involved though in having a student try and break-down his height above the ground in 3 different spots based on his rate of descent while flying a rate-1 turn. While I had to teach what I had to, my emphasis was more with the aim of maneuvering to get set-up on a downwind position similar to the power-off 180 abeam the touch-down point. If you can hit 1000' AGL abeam the touch-down point, the rest of the approach is a piece of cake and pretty much follows any standard power-off 180 that is practiced in the circuit. Basically, just do what you feel reasonable to hit that point before your final turn to the field, then when turning final, keep your eyes on your aim point.

In most cases, the 360 method was the best way to achieve that, because the aircraft we flew had a great glide ratio and we were often high over our field, so we'd just circle down and finish with the nice, gradual turn to final. I just wasn't a fan of the 3 different target altitude points they want you to teach. I taught them, but it doesn't mean I liked them. When students seemed to struggle with figuring it all out, I would just remind them of the power-off 180 we practiced in the circuit, and just tell them to shoot for that. It always seemed to work.

[CpnCrunch]

I think either is needlessly complex and might not work in any given situation. I learned the key point method for my PPL, but it's really too complex to figure out for any particular situation in the heat of the moment. Is it really realistic that you'll do this in an actual emergency?

I just do what works based on where I am and where I want to land...either S turns, or circuit, or circling, or long final with slipping. I did this for my CPL and it was fine (some kind of circuit/circle I think).

FTG just says "fly an organized approach while adjusting the flight profile to arrive at key points at the desired height and position;"

As for key points, during my CPL flight test he broke it off at 1000ft. Not exactly sure how you do 500/1000ft key points in that situation.

[photofly]

I cannot imagine that any relatively inexperienced pilot faced with a forced landing away from an airport is ever going to reach for a sectional chart, start working out the terrain elevation and then do mental arithmetic to try to ascertain altitudes for an overhead 360 approach, as it is taught. I think it’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard in the whole of flight training. It might work great in flight tests, but it’s not the least bit realistic as a useful procedure. Anything else, that you can do by eye, is better.

[tsgarp]

I've always used the T-method for the forced approach (final key point @ 500' and base key point at 1000'). Naturally that's what I've taught my students. I've done a few flight instructor ratings this summer and the candidates all seemed to have been taught the overhead 360 during their training. I've kind of warmed to the overhead 360 procedure myself.

Which do you prefer? why?

I was in the same boat as you; I learned the standard circuit pattern method for a forced approach, then learned the 360 method. I find I like the 360 method a bit better because it makes it easier to pick your keys.

[tsgarp]

I cannot imagine that any relatively inexperienced pilot faced with a forced landing away from an airport is ever going to reach for a sectional chart, start working out the terrain elevation and then do mental arithmetic to try to ascertain altitudes for an overhead 360 approach, as it is taught. I think it’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard in the whole of flight training. It might work great in flight tests, but it’s not the least bit realistic as a useful procedure. Anything else, that you can do by eye, is better.

A couple of points:

Always have an awareness of the rough terrain elevation around you. When you are flying xcountry, when you fix your position, check a nearby spot height.

Altitudes at the key points are very simple math to figure out (add 1000, add 500) and are just used as reference points; if you are high then extend, if you are low, turn a bit early. Having the students come up with a simple plan greatly increases their chance of success.

[Schooner69A]

Been using the 360 overhead since 1958. TC wasn't on board for years because "You can't ever ever ever turn away from the landing spot (runway)"

[Aviatard]

I cannot imagine that any relatively inexperienced pilot faced with a forced landing away from an airport is ever going to reach for a sectional chart, start working out the terrain elevation and then do mental arithmetic to try to ascertain altitudes for an overhead 360 approach, as it is taught. I think it’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard in the whole of flight training. It might work great in flight tests, but it’s not the least bit realistic as a useful procedure. Anything else, that you can do by eye, is better.

Having asked which method was used by the (admittedly small sample of) 2 pilots that I know who had actual engine failure, and landed off airport, the answer was “I just eyeballed it”.

[photofly]

I cannot imagine that any relatively inexperienced pilot faced with a forced landing away from an airport is ever going to reach for a sectional chart, start working out the terrain elevation and then do mental arithmetic to try to ascertain altitudes for an overhead 360 approach, as it is taught. I think it’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard in the whole of flight training. It might work great in flight tests, but it’s not the least bit realistic as a useful procedure. Anything else, that you can do by eye, is better.

Having asked which method was used by the (admittedly small sample of) 2 pilots that I know who had actual engine failure, and landed off airport, the answer was “I just eyeballed it”.

Of course they did. Does anyone know a pilot who’s done an “overhead 360” in a real emergency?

What pilots need is a toolkit to make eyeballing it that much easier and more reliable.

[PilotDAR]

I have had four actual engine failures to a forced landing in 45 years of flying. Always eyeballed it, never damaged a plane doing it, was always able to take off later when problem resolved. One was a 180 from cruise flight into CYTZ, one a circling 180 from crosswind onto a field off the end of my runway (did not attempt the impossible turn), and two more or less straight ahead to a field/water, as appropriate to what I was flying.

Lessons learned: Use Alcohol to deice avgas in the winter (two), don't allow nice to build nests from your firewall blanket in the induction hoses, and avoid low altitude skidding turns so your daughter can look at her friend's cottage, while unporting a fuel tank. It restarted before I landed, but I completed the forced landing on the lake anyway to be safe.

Noe of those involved establishing key points, nor considering a circuit pattern, mostly just aim and land, with a slip as required.

[lownslow]

NASA used the overhead 360° approach to glide in their experimental rocket planes in the 1950s and 60s. If it’s good enough for them...

[the-minister31]

To be honest, I have always seen those methods as ways to train a students ability to judge the glide.

In the flight test and in a real emergency, it's whatever works. And when it happened to me for real, I just happened to fly a circuit, but not because TC wrote it, because it felt right.

The most ridiculous debrief item I have ever heared from an examiner is "we don't like S-turns, because it's less comfortable for passengers". Let me tell you that a ride in the trees is way less comfortable than S-Turns... Fly whatever approach gets you down safetly.

[PilotDAR]

NASA used the overhead 360° approach to glide in their experimental rocket planes in the 1950s and 60s.

It's true... Though with a starting altitude above 50,000 feet, and a ten mile long runway, you've got room for imprecise glide approaches!

[praveen4143]

I teach the 360 without getting into the nitty gritty of altitudes but rather teaching the student to eyeball it on their way down. Some of the valleys out here in the BC interior can get a bit narrow the lower you get, so this give you ample room and more importantly keeps you close to he field.

Once they get an idea of eyeballing the glide, I also teach them the value of dumping flaps down and getting a steep descent into the field from a slightly high approach. I’ve been having increasing success with this method.