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

Except for crosswinds most all landings i have made have all ended power at idle. In single engine aircraft. As far as engine failures go... that is a good reason to stay current on doing it in your aircraft. Of course if you own a cirrus, they seem to say power on, land flat. Power off, pull the chute. Lol

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
I have never had an engine failure, so I've never had an unintentional power off landing. I guess I'm still waiting for mine?

Of course, I've had those moments when flying at night (I flew almost exclusively at night for a while due to schedule), where I swear I hear noises that shouldn't be there, but probably my imagination.
 
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...

Doesnt need to be for every landing, but should be done on occasion. As for running out of gas, didn't a Cirrus just do that, same demographic that buys personal light twins btw. It ain't that dangerous if you're proficient and have a few ounces of skill and common sense.



Just noticed I didn't even answer the OPs question lol

3,000hrs, 2 complete engine failures, one enroute on a night x-country, other shortly after takeoff, neither resulted in so much as a scratch on the plane.

Remeber, if you're not training for it, you're asking for it!
 
tonycondon said:
i rarely take off with an engine these days...so most of my approaches are power off
Click to expand...

That was my 1st thought with this thread "This is a trick question right"

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BC55ikXmo5I

I am the 2nd glider landing.

I have been involved with two forced landing due to engine failure. One failure occured on Downwind and was a fairly normal landing in a 172. The other was a Citabria that was towing me, when I released and the towpilot reduced power the throttle cable failed and he landed it safely in an open field. He was an old cropduster pilot that taught power off approaches.

I on the other hand I flew for two hours oblivious that he had even had an issue.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Last edited:
I generally prefer power approaches in most power planes. And you can do perfectly stabilized approaches power off on most small airplanes. Some instructors read the FAA Guidance to say you should carry power, but it really doesn't say that only that, you shouldn't be changing the power during the approach.

I generally teach that you should reduce power to your landing power setting (either power off or a lower power setting), abeam your touch down point and then try to fly the pattern with no further power adjustments until you are over the runway.

Most Light SEL aircraft can do very nice power off approaches with some practice, Learning to do power off approaches well in a variety of aircraft will require that you learn how use reduced flap settings and possibly higher approach speeds to make normal approaches power off.

Of the 40+ types of planes I have flown only 2 have really got my attention as not being able to land nicely power off. These were the Cherokee 6 and the Bellanca Viking. These are the only two I have found that I really considered a power off landing to be an emergency procedure.

Brian CFIIG/ASEL
 
Shawn said:
...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?
Click to expand...

A good CFI friend has now had three single-engine engine-outs, one during a takeoff with enough runway remaining to stop.

The other two at night, both ending up with normal landings on runways.

Second one was with an Instrument student outbound from a missed approach with an immediate turn to the runway after the engine completely destroyed itself.

It happens. A couple hundred feet lower, may have been a significantly different outcome.
 
brcase said:
Of the 40+ types of planes I have flown only 2 have really got my attention as not being able to land nicely power off. These were the Cherokee 6 and the Bellanca Viking. These are the only two I have found that I really considered a power off landing to be an emergency procedure.
Click to expand...

Genuinely curious: Having never flown either one, what do they do that's so tricky?
 
In reality, if power off landings aren't practiced at full gross in high DA, they haven't been properly practiced.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
In reality, if power off landings aren't practiced at full gross in high DA, they haven't been properly practiced.
Click to expand...

I learned to fly in a 152 at BJC, I think I've probably done a few. Frankly, at 8000 foot DA's there's not a whole lot of difference between closing the throttle hand having it pushed in a little.
 
denverpilot said:
Genuinely curious: Having never flown either one, what do they do that's so tricky?
Click to expand...

Short Answer is they have very high descent rates power off even with no flaps.

As I recall the Cherokee 6 required coming over the fence at about 100mph to have enough energy to do a descent flair with.

The Viking is the only airplane I recall where the POH says to pull the prop back to minimum RPM as part of the emergency procedure. Which definitely helps with the descent rate. I don't recall the Cherokee 6 POH recommending this but I would sure consider it as normal for an emergency procedure.

Most airplanes I fly with a controllable pitch prop I leave pulling the prop back as the ace up my sleeve to use only if I misjudge and need that little be extra to get to my landing area.

Brian
 
flyingron said:
I learned to fly in a 152 at BJC, I think I've probably done a few. Frankly, at 8000 foot DA's there's not a whole lot of difference between closing the throttle hand having it pushed in a little.
Click to expand...

You are fortunate to have apparently trained in high DA and then transitioned to low DA. It is significantly more difficult for flight students to go the other way on the DA/GrWt performance curve, especially with minimal or no actual training.

We see this yearly as typically lowland pilots load up their trainers with PAX, picnic and camping gear with full fuel for flights into the mountain airport environments:

The "not a whole lot of difference" that you are able to waive off, proves consistantly to be more than enough of a lot of difference, to give unwary pilots serious problems with overruns and landing short accidents, power available or not. Just a little of the correct flight training tilts the safety balance back more in favor of the pilot.
 
Last edited:
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...
You've only flown light two and four seat aircraft haven't you? :yes:
 
I have not had to do a real engine out landing yet, but my mantra if it ever happens is ..

"o.k. this is the insurance company plane now, I don't care how it gets bent as long as we're alive."
 
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...

For light aircraft, generally yes. But not in transport category machines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kahvPpXWbKI
 
Last edited:
Pilots should understand that descent from cruise to touchdown will require a continued series of power reductions. The timing and magnitude of each reduction will depend on a number of variables that may not be known or knowable until they occur. Use of some of the old ROT's like "bottom of the green equals top of the white" can provide some guidance as to when and how far the power control should be moved.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Doesnt need to be for every landing, but should be done on occasion.
Click to expand...
In a twin? Sorry -- I'll stick with equating that with practicing bleeding. I've got a few thousand hours in 2-engine airplanes, including 135 and military, and while SFO's were a regular part of training in single-engine jets, nobody ever even considered practicing flame-out approaches in 2-engine airplanes in any of those organizations. In fact, I don't ever recall the idea ever being raised even in jest.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
In a twin? Sorry -- I'll stick with equating that with practicing bleeding. I've got a few thousand hours in 2-engine airplanes, including 135 and military, and while SFO's were a regular part of training in single-engine jets, nobody ever even considered practicing flame-out approaches in 2-engine airplanes in any of those organizations. In fact, I don't ever recall the idea ever being raised even in jest.
Click to expand...

During my types on the 727, 757 and A320 we demonstrated during training a single engine approach in which we had a flame out of the good engine on final and completed the landing.
 
RotorAndWing said:
On the 727 it was done crossing the FAF. Single engine approach is done at flaps 5 so not a lot of drag.
Click to expand...
One out of three on the approach, then losing the one crossing the FAF? I'm impressed. No doubt a result of that EAL debacle with the chip plugs coming out. How do you do it? Raise the gear and then drop it again in close? Or do you have enough energy remaining to make the runway from 5 miles/1500 AGL? I'll bang that one off my former 727 Captain buddy (ATA to the end :().

On the A320 and B757 was done on a visual inside the FAF.
Click to expand...
How far inside? And on the GS in S/E approach configuration/speed when it happened?

In any event, it's not something I can imagine doing for practice in a light twin -- or even being possible if you are in the approach configuration at the FAF when the remaining engine dies.
 
Airplane or sim?
RotorAndWing said:
On the 727 it was done crossing the FAF. Single engine approach is done at flaps 5 so not a lot of drag.

On the A320 and B757 was done on a visual inside the FAF.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
One out of three on the approach, then losing the one crossing the FAF? I'm impressed. No doubt a result of that EAL debacle with the chip plugs coming out. How do you do it? Raise the gear and then drop it again in close? Or do you have enough energy remaining to make the runway from 5 miles/1500 AGL? I'll bang that one off my former 727 Captain buddy (ATA to the end :().
Click to expand...

On the 72 on a single engine approach it's flaps 2 then flaps 5, then lower the gear as you bleed off energy towards the runway. In the final flame out scenario the engine flames out at flaps 2, so the glide is established, flaps 5 then gear down as approaching the runway. In a transport jet there is considerable kinetic energy available and a super clean airframe and wings.

On the A320 and B757 it was done on visual approach before extending the gear. It's a demonstration of energy management.


Ron Levy said:
I've got a few thousand hours in 2-engine airplanes, including 135 and military, and while SFO's were a regular part of training in single-engine jets, nobody ever even considered practicing flame-out approaches in 2-engine airplanes in any of those organizations. In fact, I don't ever recall the idea ever being raised even in jest.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
In any event, it's not something I can imagine doing for practice in a light twin -- or even being possible if you are in the approach configuration at the FAF when the remaining engine dies.
Click to expand...

While I would never advocate doing such a maneuver in a small twin or any airplane, performing such a maneuver in the safety of a simulator gives valuable insight into energy management.
 
I am reminded of the Turkish Airbus crew that just made it over the fence at Heathrow. When they got to altitude one of them apparently remarked, "why does the radar altimeter read zero?", but that was not resolved.

Three hours later they intercept the G/S and the engines roll back to zero. For f__king up pretty badly, they did okay on energy management....
 
brcase said:
Short Answer is they have very high descent rates power off even with no flaps.

As I recall the Cherokee 6 required coming over the fence at about 100mph to have enough energy to do a descent flair with.

The Viking is the only airplane I recall where the POH says to pull the prop back to minimum RPM as part of the emergency procedure. Which definitely helps with the descent rate. I don't recall the Cherokee 6 POH recommending this but I would sure consider it as normal for an emergency procedure.

Most airplanes I fly with a controllable pitch prop I leave pulling the prop back as the ace up my sleeve to use only if I misjudge and need that little be extra to get to my landing area.

Brian
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks for answering the question.
 
flyingron said:
I learned to fly in a 152 at BJC, I think I've probably done a few. Frankly, at 8000 foot DA's there's not a whole lot of difference between closing the throttle hand having it pushed in a little.
Click to expand...

Boy ain't that the truth. I soloed in a C-150 here but we had to transition to a C-172 to finish off the Private since it was Springtime. A C-150 up here is marginal for a go-around event if one is required with two people aboard. And that particular C-150 climbed better than the club's C-152 (cruise prop... up here... Yes, dumb.)
 
bbchien said:
I am reminded of the Turkish Airbus crew that just made it over the fence at Heathrow. When they got to altitude one of them apparently remarked, "why does the radar altimeter read zero?", but that was not resolved.

Three hours later they intercept the G/S and the engines roll back to zero. For f__king up pretty badly, they did okay on energy management....
Click to expand...

That and the dual engine flame out in New Orleans, the dual flame out in Canada and the dual flame out over the Atlantic and successful landing in the Azores. I suppose one could also attribute the dual flame out and landing in the Hudson as successful energy management.

Those demonstrations in the sim, while not required by regulation are good to experience as well as confidence builders.
 
wabower said:
Pilots should understand that descent from cruise to touchdown will require a continued series of power reductions. The timing and magnitude of each reduction will depend on a number of variables that may not be known or knowable until they occur. Use of some of the old ROT's like "bottom of the green equals top of the white" can provide some guidance as to when and how far the power control should be moved.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, the ol' 182 is so draggy, I only need two power reductions. One just prior to entering the pattern so I'm not running over Skyhawks, and one abreast the point of intended landing.

Otherwise, just pointing the nose down and enjoying the additional speed, is fine. :)

Only time that's not wise is in really rough air.

I know there are aircraft that need more attention paid, but in the 182, it'll slow right up at that first reduction, like someone pulled the parking brake handle.

And I don't see much indication the O-470 suffers from enough airflow for the "shock cooling" myth/drama/debate in any real world data. One other 182 owner here does his 1" per minute reduction religiously. I bet we both pull the engines off around the same number of hours. I don't yank the thing, but I do just smoothly change it.

Move that reduction to further out for flying an approach, of course. But, she flies better approaches at 110 than 90, as my DPE showed me. The Robertson kit seems to set up a long slow porpoise in pitch that messes with airspeed control at 90, that it doesn't at 110.

It's one of the things I love about the older Skylanes and the fat Continental. Simple power-plant management.
 
Flap-speed limits are an example of the need for extra time to slow down in an orderly manner.

denverpilot said:
Most of the time, the ol' 182 is so draggy, I only need two power reductions. One just prior to entering the pattern so I'm not running over Skyhawks, and one abreast the point of intended landing.

Otherwise, just pointing the nose down and enjoying the additional speed, is fine. :)

Only time that's not wise is in really rough air.

I know there are aircraft that need more attention paid, but in the 182, it'll slow right up at that first reduction, like someone pulled the parking brake handle.

And I don't see much indication the O-470 suffers from enough airflow for the "shock cooling" myth/drama/debate in any real world data. One other 182 owner here does his 1" per minute reduction religiously. I bet we both pull the engines off around the same number of hours. I don't yank the thing, but I do just smoothly change it.

Move that reduction to further out for flying an approach, of course. But, she flies better approaches at 110 than 90, as my DPE showed me. The Robertson kit seems to set up a long slow porpoise in pitch that messes with airspeed control at 90, that it doesn't at 110.

It's one of the things I love about the older Skylanes and the fat Continental. Simple power-plant management.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Flap-speed limits are an example of the need for extra time to slow down in an orderly manner.
Click to expand...

True. My first notch has a very high speed but to save wear and tear on the tracks, I just have to plan that first reduction soon enough to have about 30 seconds to slow well below it. ;)

It's all about the particular aircraft. Some require more planning. I don't deny that.

The 182 just isn't slippery enough that I find myself needing to work very hard to stay ahead of it.

I'm also rarely at or below 3000 MSL. It has a lot more power down there at WOT, and that's a bit different. ;)
 
Dead Stick said:
You've only flown light two and four seat aircraft haven't you? :yes:
Click to expand...


Bah ha ha ha...

Dead Stick said:
1800 hours of dual over the 30+
Click to expand...

So thats 60hrs a year, that's quaint, I do ALMOST twice that IN A MONTH.

I understand you have been flying longer then I have been alive, however realize that time and skill/experience are two different things. I see many old timers like you and have BFRed a few too, the geriatric weekend warrior and "has been" population is IMO very interesting and unfortunately is where much of the anecdotal information comes from, especially the ex-airline pilots (or should I say managers).

Day to day I fly a turboprop (no AP) and teach on the side in a lil 2 seater, bout 100hrs a month worth of flying, 6-7 days a week, you?

I made that post for most folks, such as yourself, on this site who are in the training phase or dont have many hours and are flying trainers or weekend warriors in "personal" style aircraft.

On a power off note, read up the the space shuttle, the gimli glider, I could go on.

If you cant manage energy, dont practice for total engine failures and your only lame excuse is "its dangerous" well, please send your license (presuming you even have a current medical) back to the feds... you dont deserve it, nor do I want you in the skies that I work in.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
In a twin? Sorry -- I'll stick with equating that with practicing bleeding. I've got a few thousand hours in 2-engine airplanes, including 135 and military, and while SFO's were a regular part of training in single-engine jets, nobody ever even considered practicing flame-out approaches in 2-engine airplanes in any of those organizations. In fact, I don't ever recall the idea ever being raised even in jest.
Click to expand...

Full flame out, no, 0trq yes.

Think there was a video of a skydive Kingair doing a power off decent and landing, seems he could manage his energy and he does that every day.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Bah ha ha ha...



So thats 60hrs a year, that's quaint, I do ALMOST twice that IN A MONTH.

I understand you have been flying longer then I have been alive, however realize that time and skill/experience are two different things. I see many old timers like you and have BFRed a few too, the geriatric weekend warrior and "has been" population is IMO very interesting and unfortunately is where much of the anecdotal information comes from, especially the ex-airline pilots (or should I say managers).

Day to day I fly a turboprop (no AP) and teach on the side in a lil 2 seater, bout 100hrs a month worth of flying, 6-7 days a week, you?

I made that post for most folks, such as yourself, on this site who are in the training phase or dont have many hours and are flying trainers or weekend warriors in "personal" style aircraft.

On a power off note, read up the the space shuttle, the gimli glider, I could go on.

If you cant manage energy, dont practice for total engine failures and your only lame excuse is "its dangerous" well, please send your license (presuming you even have a current medical) back to the feds... you dont deserve it, nor do I want you in the skies that I work in.
Click to expand...
Who do you think you're impressing with such posts?
 
RotorAndWing said:
During my types on the 727, 757 and A320 we demonstrated during training a single engine approach in which we had a flame out of the good engine on final and completed the landing.
Click to expand...

Messing around in the sim, we've killed all 3 in both the DC-10 and MD-11. Generally, I've done it from overhead the airport at 5,000 AGL. Never been graded on it, just for the heck of it. Haven't got to try it on the whale yet.
 
VanDy said:
You were doing it wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-u-MCDi7Gk

almost all of my landings are power to idle abeam the numbers. Thats the way i was always taught, traffic and other stuff not being an issue anyway
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the entire thing. What final altitude did he reach?

brcase said:
I generally prefer power approaches in most power planes. And you can do perfectly stabilized approaches power off on most small airplanes. Some instructors read the FAA Guidance to say you should carry power, but it really doesn't say that only that, you shouldn't be changing the power during the approach.

I generally teach that you should reduce power to your landing power setting (either power off or a lower power setting), abeam your touch down point and then try to fly the pattern with no further power adjustments until you are over the runway.
Click to expand...
This post made me think of something that I thought of tinkering with during my landings. Simply to give myself more margin with a steeper approach.

Currently I reduce power to 1500 abeam and then do not touch power until short final, where power goes to idle. I thought of modifying that to use ~1700 abeam, then reduce to 1500 after established on final, reducing to idle on short final.

Does this violate the stabilized approach rule?

wabower said:
Pilots should understand that descent from cruise to touchdown will require a continued series of power reductions. The timing and magnitude of each reduction will depend on a number of variables that may not be known or knowable until they occur.
Click to expand...

Was the above scenario considered when you wrote this?

NineThreeKilo said:
Bah ha ha ha...

So thats 60hrs a year, that's quaint, I do ALMOST twice that IN A MONTH.

I understand you have been flying longer then I have been alive, however realize that time and skill/experience are two different things. I see many old timers like you and have BFRed a few too, the geriatric weekend warrior and "has been" population is IMO very interesting and unfortunately is where much of the anecdotal information comes from, especially the ex-airline pilots (or should I say managers).

Day to day I fly a turboprop (no AP) and teach on the side in a lil 2 seater, bout 100hrs a month worth of flying, 6-7 days a week, you?

I made that post for most folks, such as yourself, on this site who are in the training phase or dont have many hours and are flying trainers or weekend warriors in "personal" style aircraft.

On a power off note, read up the the space shuttle, the gimli glider, I could go on.

If you cant manage energy, dont practice for total engine failures and your only lame excuse is "its dangerous" well, please send your license (presuming you even have a current medical) back to the feds... you dont deserve it, nor do I want you in the skies that I work in.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
txflyer said:
I have not had to do a real engine out landing yet, but my mantra if it ever happens is ..

"o.k. this is the insurance company plane now, I don't care how it gets bent as long as we're alive."
Click to expand...
Yep Simple as that..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top