Landing Without Engine Power

[Tom-D]

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.

The canopy looks to be the highest point of the aircraft.

 

[poadeleted20]

The canopy looks to be the highest point of the aircraft.

It is, but the canopy bow and the bulkhead aft of the canopy are what support the airplane when it goes inverted. Busting out through the plexiglas will not cause a collapse.

 

[Tom-D]

It is, but the canopy bow and the bulkhead aft of the canopy are what support the airplane when it goes inverted. Busting out through the plexiglas will not cause a collapse.

Then shouldn't the canopy be broken already during the flip?

I think I prefer a little more over my head than a sheet of plexi.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

..... But I teach the partial power stabilized VFR approach recommended by the FAA as the "normal" way to approach a landing.

I really don’t care about the feds opinion on this one, I just shake my head when I see someone powering a plane all the way down to the ground.

Abeam the numbers power out, sure as hell when you’re on final you shouldn’t have any power, that’s a sign of a really weak pilot if you need power on final for a normal landing.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

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.

My one real engine out, I was flying airspeed indicator in high DA and heavy. If there was more drag with still prop, I didn't notice it. IOW: Learn to fly what the airplane is giving you.

While you're still high enough, don't forget your radio call once you're headed towards your landing site. If you have time at all, otherwise your ELT will handle it. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate if able.

Don't forget, tell PAX to tighten their belts, usually only worn loose, and open doors. Shove your inflatable life jackets inside of your shirts if not there all ready.

Is your back seat cargo behind a web net or lashed down? Too late now if not, it may soon be flying into the backs of heads. Get full flaps down sometime on final.

Switches off and fuel off, then fly it in FLAT and don't try to stretch glide.

At NIGHT? You did install at least a mile long beam landing lite right, so use it and your moving map. To find the best hole you can. Standard landing lites are next to useless.

Going through the written emergency flow check list repeatedly in flights and sims will help things move naturally and efficiently, so that if it ever happens, you're doing so much stuff you have no time to get spooked much. I probably forgot something cause I'm not using a checklist now.

When you slide in flat with no injuries, get everybody out fast and away. Stand well back and say, "I ALIVE!" Then start bitchin about the POS that got you into that mess....

 

[Silvaire]

The canopy looks to be the highest point of the aircraft.

Look at the aircraft in a profile view and draw a straight line between the nose and the tip of the vertical stab. The canopy arch is on that line so in an inverted position those three points would support the aircraft. The plexiglass and the sliding canopy have nothing to do with the structural support in this situation.

Look at something like a Vans RV4 for instance. It has a lightweight plexiglass bubble over the cockpit but between the front and rear seats there is a triangular riser of cromalloy tubing with an impact pad. There are no aircraft that I'm aware of that rely on a plastic canopy to support the airframe in an inverted condition.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Is your back seat cargo behind a web net or lashed down? Too late now if not, it may soon be flying into the backs of heads. Get full flaps down sometime on final.

Even with the common web nets, if it weighs more than a can of soda it's probably coming at your head anyhow. The attachments on those are often simply inadequate and often grossly so. Then again, so are the seat and restraint anchorages but that's a topic for another time.

The plexiglass and the sliding canopy have nothing to do with the structural support in this situation.

Care to explain why then they so often end up shattered and the pilots head ends up looking like a watermelon at a Gallagher show if the aircraft goes turtle? There are two options:
1. Either the pilot's head is doing it which means the design has inadeqate clearance between the pilot's head and the canopy (or the restraints or seat failed)
2. The canopy is impacting the ground.

Given the severity of injuries in many cases the latter is probably the more plausible explanation. I've sadly seen it more than a couple of times over the past few years. I have to side with Tom-D about wanting something more than a 1/8" or 1/4" piece of plexiglass between my cranium and the ground if my aircraft decides to flip over. To each and to their own though....that's just my personal take on it.

 

[Silvaire]

Care to explain why then they so often end up shattered and the pilots head ends up looking like a watermelon at a Gallagher show if the aircraft goes turtle?

They do? What aircraft are you talking about and where are the statistics to prove your point?

For the record, we're talking about a typical nose over after an otherwise successful off airport landing. We're not talking about stall/spin or other catastrophic high impact crashes where a cranium can get smashed just as well by a carry through spar as by a canopy.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Even with the common web nets, if it weighs more than a can of soda it's probably coming at your head anyhow. The attachments on those are often simply inadequate and often grossly so. Then again, so are the seat and restraint anchorages but that's a topic for another time.



.

Good point.

We looked around and found a small, very strong cargo web-net for off-road use. Bunje types of course, don't cut it.

Between the web-net's D-rings being carabinered onto the inside fuselage 4130 steel tubing and/or seat belt attachments, combined with actual supplementary lap belts restraining cargo, if that cargo does go somewhere in a crash, it's probably just as well it takes your head with it.

In my case, the cargo serves dual mandatory tasks of providing 45 pounds of required aft CG benefit when at the rear cargo bay station plus, consisting of mostly survival gear.

 

[SteveinIndy]

They do? What aircraft are you talking about and where are the statistics to prove your point?

The RV series mostly, but that is largely because of that they are probably the most common canopy equipped aircraft. The statistics are from a retrospective review of autopsy and investigation records (as well as the cases I have been on first hand) that forms the basis of a scientific paper I am currently working on regarding the frequency, severity, distribution and mechanisms of head injuries in light aircraft crashes. It is part of the research into crash survivability that will likely eventually form the crux of my masters and doctoral theses.

Like it or not, plexiglass is- at least in the thicknesses we use it in for aircraft construction- a fairly poor protective material. It won't stop a bird the size of a quail at the cruising speed of a RV or something similar. If it stands up to a forceful direct impact with the ground, that probably has more to do with a well designed supportive "roll cage" or extremely malleable ground than anything else.

For the record, we're talking about a typical nose over after an otherwise successful off airport landing. We're not talking about stall/spin or other catastrophic high impact crashes where a cranium can get smashed just as well by a carry through spar as by a canopy.

So am I. I've personally seen two forced landings where the aircraft inverted and killed the pilot through a direct head impact. In one case, there were pieces of skull visible in the initial impact scar from where the plane came down inverted.

By the way, the decelerations involved in the average stall/spin are well within the human threshold for survival and below what you experience in a serious car crash. The difference in outcome is the focus on the integrity of a light aircraft cockpit and the average small car. The problem is that the FAA insists on relying upon the "no or minor injury" limits which are poorly defined to begin with and ignorant pilots (no offense intended, I use ignorant in its traditional context of "don't know any better" rather than as the common insult it is oft utilized for) repeat it like it is from a religious text. This idea that anything but a gentle nose-over is non-survivable needs to be done away with.

Most catastrophic head injuries result from the person either being ejected from the aircraft either subtotally or totally (such as what occurs when a canopy shatters) or the failure to use a torso restraint or the failure of the restraints or the anchorages associated with them or the seat which results in the occupant being thrown either forward or laterally into cockpit structures. Out of 250 plus autopsies attended and something in the neighborhood of 2500 reviewed through records, photographs and x-rays, I have yet to see person's head crushed by a carry-through spar in a low-wing aircraft. The lack of an energy attenuating seat with the seat pan bolted directly to the spar without any "stroke" distance can cause spinal and internal injuries in an otherwise hard landing (due to either pancaking or a "tail slap") and we can discuss that if you like.

Sorry for the derail. This just happens to be my area of primary interest and professional knowledge in my current career path in injury biomechanics research.

 

[TheTraveler]

At NIGHT? You did install at least a mile long beam landing lite right, so use it and your moving map. To find the best hole you can. Standard landing lites are next to useless.

Another point that I would have never thought of, really. Of course it's not possible if you don't own a plane...a rental is a rental. Thanks for that. I wouldn't have assumed that all landing lights are equal, but I wouldn't have thought that there was such a difference.

Not to water down the rest of your input, this one just stuck out to me more.

 

[Captain]

I really don’t care about the feds opinion on this one, I just shake my head when I see someone powering a plane all the way down to the ground.

Abeam the numbers power out, sure as hell when you’re on final you shouldn’t have any power, that’s a sign of a really weak pilot if you need power on final for a normal landing.

I submit someone who says, 'I really don't care about the feds opinion' would qualify for something less than stellar pilot. I use power to the flare. My last plane used extra power IN the flare to arrest descent rate. Ya like apples?

 

[poadeleted20]

Then shouldn't the canopy be broken already during the flip?

Might be cracked or holed on top, or might just be bent inward -- plexi is flexi.

I think I prefer a little more over my head than a sheet of plexi.

There is more than a sheet of plexi over your head -- there is considerable structure above the top of your head, just not directly over it. Or do you refuse to get in convertible automobiles?

 

[poadeleted20]

I really don’t care about the feds opinion on this one, I just shake my head when I see someone powering a plane all the way down to the ground.

Abeam the numbers power out, sure as hell when you’re on final you shouldn’t have any power, that’s a sign of a really weak pilot if you need power on final for a normal landing.

I don't know what you fly, but I'd like to see your power-off ILS approaches where you cut power upon turning final.

In any event, you can shake your head all you want, but the numbers tell us that partial power stablized VFR approaches reduce the accident rate, and I'm about safety, not proving manhood.

 

[poadeleted20]

Care to explain why then they so often end up shattered and the pilots head ends up looking like a watermelon at a Gallagher show if the aircraft goes turtle?

If you can find a significant number of accidents where that happened, please share it with us. Heck, even one would be interesting, as I've never heard of that happening. OTOH, I have heard of many accidents where the minimization of injury due to the structural strength of the Grumman's cabin has been quite remarkable, such as this one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20080414X00467&key=1

 

[poadeleted20]

The RV series mostly, but that is largely because of that they are probably the most common canopy equipped aircraft.

Apples to oranges. The RV-series design is totally different. When you dig up some stats for Grummans, let us know. Until then, please properly qualify your statements as to what aircraft the data are from.

Like it or not, plexiglass is- at least in the thicknesses we use it in for aircraft construction- a fairly poor protective material.

The plexiglas canopy in the Grummans is not there for structural strength. That is provide by the aircraft structure, which has for over 40 years demonstrated extraordinary crashworthiness compare to more typically-constructed sheet metal airplane cabins. I hope you are more accurate and complete in your "scientific paper" if you plan to make it your doctoral thesis, lest you fail in your thesis defense.

 

[Tom-D]

I don't know what you fly, but I'd like to see your power-off ILS approaches where you cut power upon turning final..

I wonder how may student pilots are doing the ILS ?

At this stage of training he should be learning how to manage airspeed on the approach with out power, getting ready to demonstrate that to the DPE/Examiner.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I really don’t care about the feds opinion on this one, I just shake my head when I see someone powering a plane all the way down to the ground.

Abeam the numbers power out, sure as hell when you’re on final you shouldn’t have any power, that’s a sign of a really weak pilot if you need power on final for a normal landing.

One man's opinion, I guess.

 

[Tom-D]

Might be cracked or holed on top, or might just be bent inward -- plexi is flexi.

There is more than a sheet of plexi over your head -- there is considerable structure above the top of your head, just not directly over it. Or do you refuse to get in convertible automobiles?

I'm just curious, but how much distance is there between your head and the canopy during normal flight?

Do you wear your seat belt tight enough to stop your head from contacting the canopy when it compresses down?

OBTW, I do drive a soft top Jeep, but it has one hell of a ROOPS system installed at the factory.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm just curious, but how much distance is there between your head and the canopy during normal flight?

I think I should point out that the canopy on the AA-5-series is not solid plexi like that on the AA-1-series. The canopy has significant metal structure over the top, and only has plexi windows on the sides, and those windows are where you'd go out if you were on your back with the canopy closed. Crash experience has shown that they do not break open when the aircraft ends up inverted, necessitating appropriate tools for emergency egress in that situation -- much like a Cherokee, whose door may be jammed shut by the ground when inverted if not by structural deformation.

Do you wear your seat belt tight enough to stop your head from contacting the canopy when it compresses down?

There isn't much room for compression before the structure takes the load. The net effect isn't far off that of a PA28 except, perhaps, for a stronger canopy bow and cabin structure.

Perhaps if those making these comments did a bit more research on the construction and accident history of the Grumman types, they would not be making some of their inaccurate statements, but I remain happy to educate them on those issues.

 

[poadeleted20]

I wonder how may student pilots are doing the ILS ?

I didn't realize the discussion was limited to Student Pilots in the VFR traffic pattern, but even if it is, there are Student Pilots flying planes at airports where due to other traffic it is well nigh impossible to make a 180 power-off approach routinely.

At this stage of training he should be learning how to manage airspeed on the approach with out power, getting ready to demonstrate that to the DPE/Examiner.

As an emergency procedure, absolutely, but the PTS calls for a stabilized approach for the "normal" landing task.

4. Establishes the recommended approach and landing configuration and airspeed, and adjusts pitch attitude and power as required.​

5. Maintains a stabilized approach and recommended airspeed, or in its absence, not more than 1.3 V

SO, +10/-5 knots, with wind gust factor applied.
​

Remember that you cannot maintain airspeed if you're using pitch to maintain glide path, and you cannot maintain glide path if you're using pitch to manage speed unless you alter configuration or slip the plane, and that does not produce a "stabilized approach."
​

 

[Dead Stick]

I really don’t care about the feds opinion on this one, I just shake my head when I see someone powering a plane all the way down to the ground.

Abeam the numbers power out, sure as hell when you’re on final you shouldn’t have any power, that’s a sign of a really weak pilot if you need power on final for a normal landing.

I guess that you've never flown anything larger than say a Cessna 172 then, eh?

 

[RoscoeT]

I guess that you've never flown anything larger than say a Cessna 172 then, eh?

Obviously you don't typically land King Airs and 747s power off. When we talk about general flying technique, we're talking the piston singles, trainers, and sport planes that 99% of us fly (non professionally). NO reason you can't land most of these power off perfectly well. I tire of this, "I need power to arrest descent rate" stuff as if they're flying their Cessna or Piper like the bush pilots do...at around 1.1 vso. Yeah you need power for that, but NOT at 1.3 vso in the common piston singles. If you "need" power in 152s, 172s, 182s, Cherokees, Mooneys, Comanches, Bonanzas, Diamonds, etc, then it's because you haven't developed the skill and comfort level to do it power off.

I, too, shake my head when I see 152s and 172s powered all the way down to the ground...and not just under power, but in most cases 10kts too fast, and floating 1500-2000' down the runway. I guess that's "safe" technique as long as you never take your little trainer into less than 6000' of runway, but all this "safety", "stabilized" stuff is making pilots with pretty sad "stick and rudder" flying skills. These guys flying their "safe" "stabilized" approaches would be extremely UNsafe in the event of a real power out emergency. I just don't like the idea of lowering standards to those pilots of the lowest common denominator who probably shouldn't be flying in the first place, all at the expense of actual mastery of the basics of flight.

 

[poadeleted20]

Obviously you don't typically land King Airs and 747s power off. When we talk about general flying technique, we're talking the piston singles, trainers, and sport planes that 99% of us fly (non professionally). I, too, shake my head when I see 152s and 172s powered all the way down to the ground...and nit just under power, but 10kts too fast, and floating 1500-2000' down the runway. I guess that's "safe" technique

That is hardly what the FAA wants for their "stabilized VFR approach," and based on the accident data, isn't safe, either. 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/docs/Safety_Pamphlets/P8740-48.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/leadingedge/leading_edge_23_stabilized_approaches_199047-1.html
...and the references Mr. Turner cites in his AvWeb article.

as long as you never take your little trainer into less than 6000' of runway, but all this "safety", "stabilized" stuff is making pilots with pretty sad "stick and rudder" flying skills.

I'd have to disagree. It takes good stick and rudder skills along with an understanding of the relationships between power, pitch, trim, speed, and flight path angle to execute a stabilized VFR approach properly.

 

[RoscoeT]

I'd have to disagree. It takes good stick and rudder skills along with an understanding of the relationships between power, pitch, trim, speed, and flight path angle to execute a stabilized VFR approach properly.

Yeah, in theory instructors and students are perfect. In practice, this "stabilized approach" stuff often degenerates into the flying style that I describe, even if that is not the intention. That is my observation, anyway.

 

[Captain]

Yeah, in theory instructors and students are perfect. In practice, this "stabilized approach" stuff often degenerates into the flying style that I describe, even if that is not the intention. That is my observation, anyway.

That's a training issue. It shouldn't be that way. My students could all do it, more or less, by solo. They could all do it proficiently by check ride. It isn't all that hard and shouldn't be an issue. Ron is right that it teaches relationships between pitch and power. It's a lot going on at once if you break it down... but so is walking. We all figure out how to walk and end up making it look easy.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah, in theory instructors and students are perfect.

Perfection isn't necessary, just good skills founded upon the aerodynamic basics of pitch, power, and trim to control speed and glide path.

In practice, this "stabilized approach" stuff often degenerates into the flying style that I describe, even if that is not the intention.

I don't know how often that happens, but that seems to me to be the fault of the CFI's giving those people their flight reviews. In any event, having been an instructor all the way back to the old "power-off" days, it's still working out better than what we saw when folks tried making all their approaches to land power-off. Both landing and traffic pattern stall/spin accident rates are way down on what they were 40+ years ago.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Another point that I would have never thought of, really. Of course it's not possible if you don't own a plane...a rental is a rental. Thanks for that. I wouldn't have assumed that all landing lights are equal, but I wouldn't have thought that there was such a difference.

Not to water down the rest of your input, this one just stuck out to me more.

I never thought of it too much while renting either. Then this ol' boy let me use his Cherokee 180 to break-in an engine. I was letting a student do a night landing in it at a country airport where it gets DARK at night, not like cities. It happened the RWY lites wouldn't come on so, we flipped on the BIG landing light and it lit up the whole runway! Now that's a landing lite.

The owner had been flying 50 years primarily in rural type country and had the upgrade installed.

Backcountry can be much worse when even starlight may be fully obscured by haze. Some people have not flown VFR in true, full darkness. It can be like IFR, the ink is so thick with no natural horizon. If you know your landing site well, it is often still a challenge to get your eyes open wide enough to find it.

Check out the lights now available. If you don't know the area or worse, are in an emergency approach, you will want an aircraft landing light (or TWO in case of a failure) that "makes the night dissappear". We also carry handheld, long beam spotlights (~1 1/2 mile) that plug into power points on 12v battery packs in case of aircraft electrical failure. Handy for spotting beaches by air or sea as well.

 

[Tom-D]

Perfection isn't necessary, just good skills founded upon the aerodynamic basics of pitch, power, and trim to control speed and glide path.

I don't know how often that happens, but that seems to me to be the fault of the CFI's giving those people their flight reviews. In any event, having been an instructor all the way back to the old "power-off" days, it's still working out better than what we saw when folks tried making all their approaches to land power-off. Both landing and traffic pattern stall/spin accident rates are way down on what they were 40+ years ago.

If you are saying you can't do a stable approach with no power you best go practice how to adjust your pattern size and no power pitch control.

I don't believe there is any aircraft used for primary training that it can't be done safely.

I'd suggest that you find a nice no towered airport out in the country and get back to basics.

 

[Tom-D]

I didn't realize the discussion was limited to Student Pilots in the VFR traffic pattern, but even if it is,

Re-rread post #1 see who wrote it.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you are saying you can't do a stable approach with no power you best go practice how to adjust your pattern size and no power pitch control.

By definition, it is impossible to do a stabilized VFR approach without adjusting power along with pitch. The problem many people seem to have with this concept is a lack of understanding of what the term means -- a problem which can be solved by reading the pubs in the links I posted above.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

I guess that you've never flown anything larger than say a Cessna 172 then, eh?

Boy you're barking up the wrong tree, I fly turbine and tailwheel these days, I fly for a living 6 days a week and have kept that schedule for more then a few years now. Probably have less then 20hrs in a 172, learned how to fly in a champ and speaking of hours I also probably log more hours in a month then you do in a year.

I eat, sleep and breath this ****, done the single engine night x-country engine failure but I dont have a scratch to prove it, all but ONE of my CPL grads are currently working right now (most in AG). I train for engine failures because I've been there and there aint no partial power VFR stabilized BS approach when that **** goes down.

And yes, you can glide a plane bigger then your 172, a few of your fellow canucks did it in a 767, look it up.

If you cant manage energy without the aid of that engine send your ticket back to OKC with "INCOMPETENCE" written across it..... eh

 

[dmspilot]

Both landing and traffic pattern stall/spin accident rates are way down on what they were 40+ years ago.

Source?

 

[Tom-D]

By definition, it is impossible to do a stabilized VFR approach without adjusting power along with pitch. The problem many people seem to have with this concept is a lack of understanding of what the term means -- a problem which can be solved by reading the pubs in the links I posted above.

I guess what I do isn't by your description isn't a stabilized approach, but it was good enough for the federal examiner last month, and the way he wanted it done.

Close the throttle at the 180, leave it closed until you land. Adjust your pattern size and altitude to make it with out power. There isn't a light single that you can't do that with. it simply takes practice.

 

[wabower]

For the 709 ride?

If you are saying you can't do a stable approach with no power you best go practice how to adjust your pattern size and no power pitch control.

I don't believe there is any aircraft used for primary training that it can't be done safely.

I'd suggest that you find a nice no towered airport out in the country and get back to basics.

 

[Tom-D]

For the 709 ride?

Exactly.

 

[Dead Stick]

Boy you're barking up the wrong tree, I fly turbine and tailwheel these days, I fly for a living 6 days a week and have kept that schedule for more then a few years now. Probably have less then 20hrs in a 172, learned how to fly in a champ and speaking of hours I also probably log more hours in a month then you do in a year.

I eat, sleep and breath this ****, done the single engine night x-country engine failure but I dont have a scratch to prove it, all but ONE of my CPL grads are currently working right now (most in AG). I train for engine failures because I've been there and there aint no partial power VFR stabilized BS approach when that **** goes down.

And yes, you can glide a plane bigger then your 172, a few of your fellow canucks did it in a 767, look it up.

If you cant manage energy without the aid of that engine send your ticket back to OKC with "INCOMPETENCE" written across it..... eh

My dear friend, I doubt very much that you fly more in a month than I do in a year. I've made my living in a cockpit for nearly 40 years. A year or so ago, I was back at DFW doing a recurrent in the jet I fly for a living and the sim instructor was curious how I do if he failed all of the engines on me 7,000' agl directly overhead yhe airport - he knew that I was a current CFI-G (as well as CFI, CFII, and CFI-ME) I asked him which runway and where he wanted the wheels to touchdown on the runway then I proceeded to demonstrate how precisely you can land a transport category jet without power. Get off your high-horse, my friend. Your original comment...

I really don’t care about the feds opinion on this one, I just shake my head when I see someone powering a plane all the way down to the ground.

Abeam the numbers power out, sure as hell when you’re on final you shouldn’t have any power, that’s a sign of a really weak pilot if you need power on final for a normal landing.

...shows an ignorance as to how to properly fly anything larger than that Champ you learned to fly in. And for the record, I learned to fly in a champ 47 years ago. Oh and by the way, I'm not a Canadian, but I did marry one...eh.

 

[SteveinIndy]

If you can find a significant number of accidents where that happened, please share it with us. Heck, even one would be interesting, as I've never heard of that happening. OTOH, I have heard of many accidents where the minimization of injury due to the structural strength of the Grumman's cabin has been quite remarkable, such as this one:

I can't share specific crashes and the associated information because of the limitations placed upon me by the release required to obtain the autopsy and/pr medical reports in many states and those in place because of the institutional review board at the university where my research was originally based. One of the major problems with NTSB reports is that they tend to be very short on anything related to crash survivability or occupant protection. The reports from the local law enforcement and coroner/medical examiner tend to have much more data.

I will point out that you and I agree that the Grumman is one of the better designs. Since you asked for that specifically, I went through and pulled the few crashes in Grummans. There was data for four crashes/incidents. All four ended up inverting at one some point during the crash sequence and two of those were fatal (a total of three fatalities). Three of the four had the canopy shatter. There was only one case where the victim was ejected and that involved failures of the seat attachments which resulted in fatal head, neck, chest and abdominal injuries. The passenger self-extricated after the crash but succumbed to chest and abdominal injuries possibly due to a delay in arrival of EMS providers. In the other fatality, there was a failure of the restraints (which appeared to be due to failure to replace them when they had become worn) and the pilot impacted the instrument panel with his face. The two non-fatal crashes involved nose-overs during landing rollout in both cases. Both resulted in minor to moderate injuries. One pilot received a jaw fracture from his failure to use a shoulder restrain.

Sorry for not being more "Grumman-specific" or giving more detail in the original post. I try to avoid throwing too many statistics around unless specifically asked because it can get confusing to those who aren't as well versed as you or myself. If anyone wants more detail or have questions about other models, please feel free to PM me. Ron, if you would like to read the paper once it is ready for submission, let me know. I can always afford to have a critical set of eyes go over it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Source?

You can find the data at the Air Safety Foundation or in FAA reports.

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess what I do isn't by your description isn't a stabilized approach, but it was good enough for the federal examiner last month, and the way he wanted it done.

Close the throttle at the 180, leave it closed until you land. Adjust your pattern size and altitude to make it with out power. There isn't a light single that you can't do that with. it simply takes practice.

Actually, there are several light singles you can't do that with, but you've probably never flown them. In any event, the PTS is quite clear about what is expected on Sport/Rec/Private for both the Normal and Emergency Approach and Landing tasks, and the FAA pubs are quite clear about what constitutes a "Stabilized VFR Approach." If the Inspector wanted you to cut power at the 180 point and land without touching power again, he was testing you on the Emergency Approach and Landing Task, not the Normal Approach and Landing task.