To put it bluntly, most light plane pilots suck at forced approaches. It's one of those stick-and-rudder exercises that simply needs to be practiced more, to be any good at.

If you've only held a guitar in your hands a couple times before, would you expect to be able to play a song on it? Of course not. Similarly, you had better do more than one or two practice forced approaches before your flight test. There is no substitute for practice.

I have observed what I call "The Law Of Inequalities", which is that a student is rarely better at flying a maneuver than their instructor. In fact, the student might at best typically approach 50% (pick your own number) of the skill of their instructor, depending upon the skill of the instructor, and the natural aptitude (and age) of the student.

This is a problem when the instructor doesn't fly (or understand) a maneuver very well. Neither will his students.

To solve this, when I am training new class 4 instructor candidates, every time we head back to the airport, I pull the throttle overhead the airport, at varying headings, altitudes and locations. I have the luxury of doing this, because I fly out of an uncontrolled airport. It really works the new class 4 instructor's skill at planning and executing a practice forced approach, all the way to the ground, instead of overshooting at 500 AGL (I hate that - PFLus Interruptus).

As a result, all of my instructor candidates are pretty darned good at forced approaches, and according to the law of inequalities, should do a good job teaching their students, which is what it's all about

People like to crap on instructors, and that ok with me. I'm not one of the instructors that needs to be crapped on, so I know the crap isn't directed at me.

Not many people want to teach, let alone teach new class 4 instructors, but I think it's a blast. You get to shape the next generation of pilots, which IMHO is pretty darned cool.

Wait a minute...

My class one really harped on the forced approaches too when I was doing my Class 4. Teaching was interesting. I'd certainly do it again (other than the fact that I am no longer qualified) I do prefer charter work though I must say.

I'm not an instructor any more and certainly not an instructor instructor. But if you come to Invermere and want to fly my 172, my bare bones 1/2 hour checkout will include a surprise engine failure somewhere within gliding distance of the airport. Some make it, many--unfortunately--don't.


My first forced approach to landing was during night circuits well after my PPL. Before it had always been 'oh, you made it... overshoot' at 500 ft.

I was fortunate as a young pilot many years ago to have a wonderful mentor who took it upon himself to constantly critique my flying. The big one with him was forced approaches. Better than life insurance was his view. The good part was I lived in Saskatchewan at the time and he would take me out to a hay field and land, lay down some paper with dirt lumps to hold it in place and I was expected to land on that spot after shutting down the engine from 1000 feet. I loved that type of flying and we repeated this dozens and dozens of times over the summer. Our bravado was a bit much when we would occasionally shut down the engine at 1500 feet, stop the prop and land true dead-stick. It all paid off when I had an engine failure on my Luscombe which was uneventful and many years later when the float stuck in the carb on my Stearman when doing aerobatics which also was more or less uneventful. Gets back to my view about really learning the basics before moving on or up. I know that the days of flying like I experienced are gone but the same self training can be done at uncontrolled airstrips.

hz2p

You are right most light aircraft pilots suck at forced approaches, but they suck at not having the engine fail in first place even more.

This sounds facile but it is not. Accident stats show that around 80 % of all forced landing are the result of an engine failure that was directly casued by the actions or inactions of the pilot. Carb ice and fuel mismanagement lead the list of totally preventable accidents. The very least likely cause of a forced approach would be when a well maintained engine with no detectable faults in the runup, normal engine guage indications during the runup and in flight, no detectable carb ice and fed by sufficent uncontaminated fuel from a correctly selected tank ...just up and stops, which is the standard flight training scenario.

In other words if you are sitting in the field next to your perfectly intact airplane after the engine failure, there was an 80% chance you were stupid, no matter how well you flew the approach, you probably could have prevented having the engine fail in the first place, which in my opinion totally negates the wonderfullness of your flying skill demonstration.

Furthermore for ever case of an every engine that just stopped there was probably another two case of an engine which had a partial power failure, a scenario which is hardly ever addressed in flight training and if improperly handled can mean the difference between an uneventfull landing at an airport or a bunch of mangled metal somewhere else,

When I teach the forced approach exercise the PGI is broken into 3 parts

Part 1 = How not to have the engine fail in the first place
Part 2 = How to get useable power back if the engine does fail
Part 3 = How to survive a landing with no engine power

The emphasis is on part 1 and 2. Personally I have found that part 3 is not a big issue if the basic flying skills are there. Problems with flying the actual forced approach manoever are almost always a symptom of a lack of foundation flying skills.

This strays slightly from the OP, but a message to all instructors out there:

Encourage your students to keep practicing their skills after they get their licences! Passing the PPL doesn't mean that the skill of making the field is now forever engrained in you. This is a skill that deteriorates with time and requires regular attention.

If you're a bored instructor looking for more students at the school you work at, I suggest trying to start something like "rust removal" program on an annual basis, preferably before the busy season such as summer. Offer a deal to renters for a reduced price to get an instructor for an hour or two to go out and practice things. I think most flight school management will accept offering a break even price for a weekend for this program, in the interest of getting renters who haven't been out in a while back in the game, and sharpening the skills of rental pilots. If presented to insurance companies, it has the added bonus of potentially reducing rates through being proactive.

BPF makes some excellent points. I remember a fellow that was flying a Stinson and a spark plug blew out of the cylinder, bad helicoil. He immediately headed for the worse field in the area and destroyed his plane but fortunately wasn't hurt too badly in the "crash" landing. Lots of noise and smoke but he could have easily made it back to the airport. So I certainly agree with his points on one and two but I don't agree on three. I spent years teaching pilots, (not students) tailwheel flying, floats and ski's as well as aerobatics and what I found was on average their basic flying skills were lacking. Hours and hours spent doing the same thing (take off, cruise,land) doesn't make you a great pilot. The good news is that it doesn't take that long to bring your basic skills back if you ever had them.

I feel like I was crapped on from great height.

iflyforpie wrote:I'm not an instructor any more and certainly not an instructor instructor. But if you come to Invermere and want to fly my 172, my bare bones 1/2 hour checkout will include a surprise engine failure somewhere within gliding distance of airport.

In! Do I have to work the radio?

robertsailor1 wrote:Lots of noise and smoke but he could have easily made it back to the airport.

If the airport was visual perhaps. Smoke is one of those things where I am going down RIGHT NOW. You have no idea what is causing the smoke and as the old saying goes, where there is smoke, there is fire. Even if the mixture isn't burning out the plug hole, the vapour might accumulate under the cowl and catch fire.

The controllability and structural integrity of a burning aircraft is measured in minutes. Your friend did the right thing.

There was a great discussion at the time when the Stinson went down and the mechanics all agreed that he didn't need to wreck the plane and one of them had said he had seen it happen a couple of times without any consequences, as blowing a helicoil wasn't uncommon in those engines but that's the wonderful thing about opinions, I have one, they had one and you have one. No facts, just opinions.
Personally I had a 210 blow the diaphragms in the engine driven fuel pump when I was over the rocks on the way home. I got back under reduced power but it was pissing fuel all over exhaust manifold for a long time but what choice did I have, try to put it down in the mountains. When I got back and had the engine shop look at it Don said it was unlikely to start a fire when I was flying but the odds when up on the ground.

But it is based on the information you know. Your friend had no way of knowing that a helicoil had blown, just as you probably had no idea that there was fuel pissing on the exhaust manifold. With absence of smoke (nice thing about most 210s is the wing mirror) I would have probably done the same thing as your fuel pump scenario, continued on as I could.

Nothing wrong with your opinion. We all have to make decisions in a life time of flying and some of them very quickly. Personally fire is one of the things I've always feared and for really good reasons, fortunately it doesn't happen very often these days. To be really honest I can't tell you exactly what I would have done if I'd been in the Stinson drivers shoes, we all second guess situations like this but I sure as hell would have picked a better field if I did put it down, LOL.

This sounds facile but it is not. Accident stats show that around 80 % of all forced landing are the result of an engine failure that was directly casued by the actions or inactions of the pilot.

Interesting thoughts, but can you supply some valid proof of the above statement?

Over the years I have had a number of mechanical failures in airplanes that were beyond my ability to have prevented, in fact two of them were in turbine powered airplanes.

While I am waiting for a response I shall search my memory banks and see if I may have had a mechanical failure that I can attribute to my own actions or lack thereof, if I think of any I will post them here.

Cat Driver wrote:

This sounds facile but it is not. Accident stats show that around 80 % of all forced landing are the result of an engine failure that was directly casued by the actions or inactions of the pilot.

Interesting thoughts, but can you supply some valid proof of the above statement?

Over the years I have had a number of mechanical failures in airplanes that were beyond my ability to have prevented, in fact two of them were in turbine powered airplanes.

While I am waiting for a response I shall search my memory banks and see if I may have had a mechanical failure that I can attribute to my own actions or lack thereof, if I think of any I will post them here.

Cat Driver

I arrived at the "about 80 %" figure from looking many years looking at accident summaries. Of course what consititutes "directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot" will always be subjective. For what it is worth a large West Coast FTU has never in the last 35 years, had a forced landing caused by a sudden mechanical failure which stopped the engine. They have however had 3 aircraft perform off airfield forced landings due to to engine failure in that time.Two ran out of gas and the third allow carb ice to develop to such an extent that the engine stopped. I would bet that most other large flight schools would have a similar record. The good news is two out of the three resulted in no aircraft damage and the third wrecked the aircraft but no was hurt. So I guess the school has been consistantly being doing a good job of teaching thier students how to fly forced approaches because they were generally very successfull.......but my point remains, ultimately the only reason that the engine stopped was because of mismanagement by the pilot.

Finally this thread which is in the "training" and was started by a comment on the skills of "light airplane pilots"... or in other words not 30,000 hour pilots with 50 years of flying experience. I would suggest you and the vast majority of your professional brethern don't make the kinds of mistakes I was refering to and so therefore the challenge of the flight training industry should IMO be to improve "light aircraft " pilot decision making skills, rather than only working on the mechanics of flying the forced approach manoever. As always this represents only my personal opinion and is worth exactly what you paid for it.

I was not attempting to tilt the scales towards engine failures among high time pilots B.P.F., I was only commenting on the issue of engine failures in general.

It is understandable that engine failures in FTU's would be less than in more advanced airplanes due to the simplicity and reliability of the small engines in typical training airplanes.

I have no problem with your methods of teaching prevention, however the fact still remains that engines do quit without warning and a pilot should be prepared to make the safest landing possible given the circumstances at the time.

I try to instill the " Awareness Factor ".

Always be aware of your position and escape routes and landing area choices.

It is to bad the training industry at the Ab-Initio level pays such low wages that few high time pilots bother to renew their instructor ratings.

A common time for an engine failure, if its a mechanical one is the first power reduction after takeoff. I leave the throttle alone until I have at least 500 feet. When I used to do lots of cross country work I would always have a preselected place I would go if the engine packed in, just a habit, no stress and very little thought as I moved across the country side. That habit has never left me and it has served me well. I've had 2 engine failures in just under 9000 hours, one mechanical and the other was water in the fuel. I religiously check my fuel but the little Luscombe had the quick drains located just forward of the lowest point in a 3 point attitude. When I put the tail on a saw horse I drained about 2 quarts of water out.

Cat,

I would tend to agree more with BPF on this one. I don't know the exact statistics, but I've seen far more "pilot screw up" engine failures than actual mechanical ones. You are correct that engines sometimes quite without notice, but, without kissing up to you, if you did not have such a methodical approach to flying as you espouse on this forum, I guarantee you would have had a lot more engine failures than you have.

As to landing on an actual engine failure, I always make students land in a smaller (2000') grass strip with trees on one end. It is a lot more realistic than having the students land on a 5000' paved strip.

A common time for an engine failure, if its a mechanical one is the first power reduction after takeoff.

I have heard this said many times, and I have also heard it said that it's an old wife's tale and totally untrue. Can any suggest any reasons as to why it might, in fact, be true?

photofly wrote:

A common time for an engine failure, if its a mechanical one is the first power reduction after takeoff.

I have heard this said many times, and I have also heard it said that it's an old wife's tale and totally untrue. Can any suggest any reasons as to why it might, in fact, be true?

I'd only be guessing, but I would think that it would have to do with it being the first change after a high power run? Things tend to break more often when something has recently changed.... at least, that's been the case in all my experience with mechanical things non-aviation. Different vibrations and harmonics, speeds of different moving parts changing, with changes in stresses and accelerations....


More to the point of my post though, on the forced landing bit; I'll go with the "extremely important to be able to execute safely" crowd. As a matter of fact, I partialled my PPL flight test on a forced approach 10 years ago. Redid that item the next day and passed... But failed that first time, nonetheless.

Came as a surprise at the time, perhaps young and overconfident... And having flown gliders regularly for almost 3 years by that point....where there's only ever one chance at a landing.

In fact, flying gliders is easy, despite the fact that every landing is really a "forced landing" in a manner of speaking. In a glider, you must be constantly aware of your position, relative to a suitable landing area (preferably the airport)....and manage energy very carefully.... Figure out where that next bit of lift will come from, if that cloud or ridge might give you something, or if it's just not happening, if you have to move closer to the airport.... And fly an approach such that you can dump altitude with spoilers/slip, but always be able to make it. It's easy because even the worst gliders glide far better than the best airplanes. And gliders almost universally have spoilers, and really do make flying an approach with no power quite easy.

The trick, to me, seems to be to be able to safely fly a forced approach in whatever aircraft you should happen to be flying.... I'm certain that for most this becomes easier only with time and experience - I assumed that because I could do it effectively in a glider, it wouldn't be a problem in a docile little 172, yet I would have likely slammed into an embankment/wires with the forced approach I flew on that first PPL flight test.

Practice and decent instructors make the difference, and if I'm going on an instructional flight, I really have no problem being pushed....so long as there's likely to be a positive outcome or lesson along the way. Going easy on someone really doesn't do them any favours in the end.

Of course, it'd be best to avoid an engine failure altogether - In my case, where I'll be flying this summer, outcomes of an early engine failure with glider on tow are likely to be unpleasant... It's certainly in everyone's interests to know and take care of your engine and aircraft....

On a side note, I'll be doing the first flight and breakin and first towing on a freshly rebuilt and 160 HP upgraded O320 in a week or so, and have read all that I can from Lycoming on the matter, and certainly welcome any other suggestions....familiar airplane, new engine.

Ehm, that may have been another rambling and long post. I suspect this may become the norm, as it seems that I'm lurking less and posting more here these days. Apologies if it's a little long.



Cheers,
Colin

photofly wrote:

A common time for an engine failure, if its a mechanical one is the first power reduction after takeoff.

I have heard this said many times, and I have also heard it said that it's an old wife's tale and totally untrue. Can any suggest any reasons as to why it might, in fact, be true?

Possibly true if your are flying a big two row radial over 2000 horse power. There are a lot of moving pieces and a highly loaded reduction gear assembly, so there was some evidence that if the engine accepts full power it will probably keep going, but the first RPM changes the vibration harmonics and so there appears to be a pattern of engine failures coincident with the first post takeoff power reduction.

However there is absolutely no evidence that this applies to a general aviation Continental/Lycoming flat engine.

photofly wrote:

A common time for an engine failure, if its a mechanical one is the first power reduction after takeoff.

I have heard this said many times, and I have also heard it said that it's an old wife's tale and totally untrue. Can any suggest any reasons as to why it might, in fact, be true?

I seem to remember there was a problem with this with some of the 182s and a few other aircraft with fuel bladders which had a bad habit of trapping water in the tanks. Its usually advised that one do the "rock and roll" test as part of one's walk around if you are uncertain of what kind of tanks your 182 had. During take off and the nose up attitude during the climb the water would get dislodged and then be able to make its way to the pick up in the tank after the aircraft levelled off. Not a mechanical failure of the engine, but the level off being the most common place to have a loss of power or stoppage if one took on bad fuel and didn't notice it on the walkaround.

On the aerobatic forum just got news that a gals flying a Pitts blew all the oil out and she was forced to dead stick it in..all OK as she can fly but it does happen.

Coincident with the first power reduction is usually the emptying of the header tank on the 185 if you took off with the fuel selector off.

I did have an engine failure close to power reduction, but I doubt it had anything to do with it (never found a conclusive cause).

Catastrophic failures can happen any time.

Someone else s view on engine failures.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/profici ... ml?start=1