Engine Failure During Slip

[Everskyward]

If this is a low wing, doesn't the POH checklist say to switch to the fullest tank?

If it's a Cessna, you need to have your fuel system looked at, as it should be impossible to unport both tanks unless one is empty. And your "hard and fast rule" doesn't work here, as the selector must be on BOTH for takeoff and landing.

That is assuming it has a BOTH. I flew a number of older Cessnas which only had a LEFT and RIGHT.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Every time Henning drags out that idea, I have to reply with the following quote from Denker:

"Looking at figure 7.9, you may suspect that you can increase the angle of descent by flying at speeds well below VL/D. In principle, this is possible — but such a procedure is even more unwise and unprofessional than the high-speed procedure discussed in the previous section.

The main problem is that by the time you achieve a significant increase in descent angle, your airspeed will be much too close to the stall. A slight gust, windshear, or imperfection in pilot technique could cause a stall. Remember, stalling on approach is the #1 way to cause a fatal accident.

Many airplanes can safely sink without being too close to the stall. Short wings, especially, or some draggier designs like the Champ, will sink well if taken a little below 1.3Vso. I never get my Jodel anywhere near the stall during approach; it will sink dangerously fast long before that. Ercoupes, those famous "stall-proof" short-winged airplanes, suffered numerous wrecks just by pancaking into the runway when too slow.

One can lose altitude using sink rate at lower airspeed, then dive a bit so there's enough speed for the flare.

Dan

 

[Dan Thomas]

At least some models of Cessna 210 are placarded with “Avoid landing approaches in red arc and over 30 second slips under 1/2 tank.” I was amazed at the Half Tank aspect.

210s have long (spanwise), narrow tanks and very little wing dihedral. A slip with half tanks can cause unporting real quick. The 30 seconds are taken care of by the header tank.

Dan

 

[Stewartb]

Energy management can rely on application of thrust or on trading altitude for airspeed. Good STOL pilots fly a decelerating final approach to the ground. They set up appropriate for conditions and trade altitude for airspeed to hit their spots when there's nothing left. The better the pilot the less the throttle jockeying. It's a thing of beauty.

Slipping is a maneuver to deal with excess altitude. Big semi-Fowler flaps are a more appropriate solution in my use. The evolution of airplanes.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Personally, I slip the heck out of the Waco.. There are no flaps and forward visibility from the back sucks. Slipping helps keep the runway in sight until you approach the threshold, especially on narrow runway. If you used Henning's technique, the attitude would be such that you wouldn't have any view of the runway.

 

[MAKG1]

Personally, I slip the heck out of the Waco.. There are no flaps and forward visibility from the back sucks. Slipping helps keep the runway in sight until you approach the threshold, especially on narrow runway. If you used Henning's technique, the attitude would be such that you wouldn't have any view of the runway.

You don't need a Waco or other big taildragger (like the P-51 I saw at Livermore Saturday) to lose sight of the runway behind the power curve. A Cardinal will do it just fine.

In fact, that was lesson #1 when I got my complex endorsement in a 177RG. Even a little behind the power curve means the runway is out of sight on final. Flaps or no flaps.

 

[FastEddieB]

Are you also selective about what airports you depart from? An engine failure at many airports on takeoff will leave you in deep doo doo.

One must always (subjectively) make the distinction between necessary and unnecessary risks.

 

[vintage cessna]

One must always (subjectively) make the distinction between necessary and unnecessary risks.

Landing with power is no more risky than taking off with power. If you are doing an honest to goodness short field landing controlling the path with power is the way to do it.

 

[Stewartb]

You don't need a Waco or other big taildragger (like the P-51 I saw at Livermore Saturday) to lose sight of the runway behind the power curve. A Cardinal will do it just fine.

In fact, that was lesson #1 when I got my complex endorsement in a 177RG. Even a little behind the power curve means the runway is out of sight on final. Flaps or no flaps.

That's contrary to my perspective and I do 100% of my landings behind the power curve. Cessna flaps are wonderful for allowing you to fly slow with a good view up front. If you're at pattern speed in my 180 and go to 40* flaps you have to point the nose down to maintain flying speed. And that's a great feature. It allows us to make steep approaches at safe airspeeds with full control to precise spots. And I've never unported a fuel tank doing it!

 

[bullwinkle]

Yeah, I don't typically use slips for multiple reasons, this included. If I'm high on final I typically pull the throttle and pull the nose up to chirp the stall horn and just let it sink nose high and coordinated. I get a pretty good sink rate, and the non pilot passengers don't go through the discomfort of a slip (most don't like it one bit).

I've done it both ways. Pitching up to increase sink rate works, but I don't do it with passengers in the airplane. A slip is safer IMO. My POH doesn't say anything that I know of regarding slipping and fuel.

 

[bullwinkle]

I use full flaps almost all the time in my Sky Arrow, and did so in my Cirrus.

If I err on the approach, I try to do it on the high side, so I use small to medium slips routinely to "fine tune" my landing spot, even with full flaps. Got fairly good with slips when I owned a Citabria without flaps.

Works well for me - others can do whatever they want.

And if anyone recommended slowing down to near the stall to increase sink rate, I'd say that's very bad advice, for reasons already pointed out and which seem obvious.

Same here. Being a little high on final is much better than being a little low if the engine stops.

 

[bullwinkle]

Many airplanes can safely sink without being too close to the stall. Short wings, especially, or some draggier designs like the Champ, will sink well if taken a little below 1.3Vso. I never get my Jodel anywhere near the stall during approach; it will sink dangerously fast long before that. Ercoupes, those famous "stall-proof" short-winged airplanes, suffered numerous wrecks just by pancaking into the runway when too slow.

One can lose altitude using sink rate at lower airspeed, then dive a bit so there's enough speed for the flare.

Dan

My CTSW works pretty well this way. When I do it I'm WELL below gross and well above stall. The plane comes down nicely.

I still prefer the slip though, and as I stated I won't do the above with passengers or low to the ground. And only in calm winds.

 

[FastEddieB]

Landing with power is no more risky than taking off with power.

Sure.

But is it not obvious that one is necessary and one is not?

 

[vintage cessna]

Sure.

But is it not obvious that one is necessary and one is not?

No, only if you are doing make believe short field landings. Just from personal observation there seems to more landing mishaps from approaches too high and too much energy with no power than from approaches dragging it in.

If one is going to attempt a real short field landing without power then everything must be judged and executed perfectly. With power, adjustments can be made and there will be no excess energy or floating.

 

[Stewartb]

Sure.

But is it not obvious that one is necessary and one is not?

I remember looking at a video of you landing diagonally in a crosswind. What I remember is seeing how flat you came in, how much power you needed to apply to maintain that flat profile and hold course, and how far you seemed to float in ground effect. Just trying to make sense of your comments.

 

[FastEddieB]

I remember looking at a video of you landing diagonally in a crosswind. What I remember is seeing how flat you came in, how much power you needed to apply to maintain that flat profile and hold course, and how far you seemed to float in ground effect. Just trying to make sense of your comments.

Point taken.

Definitely not my normal (nor best) approach!

 

[FastEddieB]

No, only if you are doing make believe short field landings. Just from personal observation there seems to more landing mishaps from approaches too high and too much energy with no power than from approaches dragging it in.

If one is going to attempt a real short field landing without power then everything must be judged and executed perfectly. With power, adjustments can be made and there will be no excess energy or floating.

Whatever works!

 

[vdehart]

I always fly a tight pattern and a steep approach. The goal is to be able to make it onto the runway if at any point the engine fails while in the pattern. Even on the upwind leg I can put her down in front of me on the remaining runway between 0 - 600' AGL, and then I have demonstrated the impossible turn (at a safe altitude) between 600' - 1000' AGL. The rest of the pattern is tight enough to permit a glide onto the runway if at any point the engine quits. And no, I do not need to slip it on a normal landing flying the pattern this way; we were actually practicing simulated engine outs when this (ironically) occurred.

 

[Stewartb]

Point taken.

Definitely not my normal (nor best) approach!

I wasn't trying to pick on you. That video is a prime example of why I fly steep full flap approaches the way I do. Maybe some guys are happier with slips. So be it. I see a lot of airplanes come into lake Hood strip and haven't seen a slip in several years. I find these comments interesting. Not convincing by any means, but interesting.

 

[FastEddieB]

3,000'+ is hardly a short field, but at Blue Ridge Skyport the tall trees on final can make it seem short.

Here's me at full flaps, still slipping it in once clear of the trees:

http://youtu.be/R0IK7sm59sY

Feel free to fast forward to about 1 minute.

Landed there at least a half dozen times in a Cirrus - speed control is critical, though the upslope at the end of the runway helps a lot if you're just a little off.

BTW, the port for the stall warning horn must have been obstructed - it should have been blaring on that landing, as it virtually always is.

 

[vintage cessna]

I always fly a tight pattern and a steep approach. The goal is to be able to make it onto the runway if at any point the engine fails while in the pattern. Even on the upwind leg I can put her down in front of me on the remaining runway between 0 - 600' AGL, and then I have demonstrated the impossible turn (at a safe altitude) between 600' - 1000' AGL. The rest of the pattern is tight enough to permit a glide onto the runway if at any point the engine quits. And no, I do not need to slip it on a normal landing flying the pattern this way; we were actually practicing simulated engine outs when this (ironically) occurred.

Even more ironic is that the engine quit due to a prolonged slip in an effort to lose altitude prior to landing.

 

[RoscoeT]

What are we arguing about? Some airplanes slip like crap - Cessnas, Huskys, RVs. Not very useful in these airplanes. Some airplanes slip really well, and are useful - Cubs, Stearmans, Pitts. A slip is a tool. Some people find it a useful tool for the type of airplane they fly and the type of flying they do. Some people do it for fun or to maintain skill. Some people can consistently land an airplane power off with a slip just as accurately as someone dragging it in with power. Some people like to do it one way, others another. I'd much rather be riding with the power-off slipper than the 3-degree dragger inner if we ever had to make an emergency landing. Many pilots are woefully unable to put an airplane down accurately without power as a crutch. So what if you don't see air taxis or airliners or whatever do slips to land? That means nothing.

 

[danhagan]

Who slips for more than 30 seconds???

1. 747 pattern flyers
2. 5 miles straight in final flyers at WOT to 1 mile on the GPS, then they realize the GPS measures to mid field

 

[vdehart]

Even more ironic is that the engine quit due to a prolonged slip in an effort to lose altitude prior to landing.

Well, I never considered 10 seconds a prolonged slip, which circles back to the real lesson learned that any slip (even a sideslip for crosswind correction) should be done with the selector on the high tank. This all being due to the risk of unporting the fuel.

And nobody can make the argument that they've done it a million times and never had a problem with half fuel or whatever, because I would have made that argument up until two days ago...

 

[Stewartb]

What airplane? Did I miss that?

It seems odd that an engine would quit in 10 seconds even with the fuel supply interrupted at the tank. My plane will run for a couple of minutes at idle with the fuel selector in off position. An airplane quitting in 10 seconds from an assumed fuel supply failure would lead me to investigate a little further. Especially given that this is an unusual result during a familiar maneuver. Did it ever light back up after switching tanks?

 

[vintage cessna]

I think it was a low wing LSA. His original post said he was in a slip from 10-15 seconds.

 

[FastEddieB]

What are we arguing about?

Good question.

Much like the amount of sideslip necessary in a crosswind landing becomes automatic and second nature, I find the slips I often use on final to be much the same - I just do them without much thinking about it.

Sometimes it's not until I view a video that I notice small, intentional slips I used to land at a given spot on the runway.

I'd never argue they have to have a place on every approach. But they're such a handy and valuable tool I don't think they should be ignored either.

As an aside, I have a single, fuselage mounted tank so unporting is never an issue!

 

[Stewartb]

It's a more interesting topic than gay marriage. I enjoy reading other guys' opinions.

 

[timwinters]

I almost always fly a power-off approach and, when I do, I purposely fly it a bit high. Then I kick it into a slip on short final if I'm still a little high to put it on the numbers (before the numbers actually). A full deflection slip at 65 to 70 mph (indicated) will bring a straight tail 182 down fast.

The game I play w/ myself is that if I touch the throttle I've failed the test. I fail maybe 1 in 10.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

What are we arguing about? Some airplanes slip like crap - Cessnas, Huskys, RVs. Not very useful in these airplanes. Some airplanes slip really well, and are useful - Cubs, Stearmans, Pitts. A slip is a tool. Some people find it a useful tool for the type of airplane they fly and the type of flying they do. Some people do it for fun or to maintain skill. Some people can consistently land an airplane power off with a slip just as accurately as someone dragging it in with power. Some people like to do it one way, others another. I'd much rather be riding with the power-off slipper than the 3-degree dragger inner if we ever had to make an emergency landing. Many pilots are woefully unable to put an airplane down accurately without power as a crutch. So what if you don't see air taxis or airliners or whatever do slips to land? That means nothing.

This makes sense to me. And don't forget the canadian pilot who landed the airliner on a closed drag strip when he experienced engine failure due to fueling error. He used a slip to get it in a short field. Claimed it was due to his glider background.often I use a slip because I like to. As I usually slip down to around twenty feet or less, losing the engine would not be a big deal.

 

[Bill Watson]

That's contrary to my perspective and I do 100% of my landings behind the power curve. Cessna flaps are wonderful for allowing you to fly slow with a good view up front. If you're at pattern speed in my 180 and go to 40* flaps you have to point the nose down to maintain flying speed. And that's a great feature. It allows us to make steep approaches at safe airspeeds with full control to precise spots. And I've never unported a fuel tank doing it!

All true except I'm not sure what you describe here is "behind the power curve". Not sure what the technical specs are though.

No, only if you are doing make believe short field landings. Just from personal observation there seems to more landing mishaps from approaches too high and too much energy with no power than from approaches dragging it in.

If one is going to attempt a real short field landing without power then everything must be judged and executed perfectly. With power, adjustments can be made and there will be no excess energy or floating.

I use power on most all airplane approaches. However I learned to land short and precisely, mainly off-field, in gliders. Amazing what you can do with a well focused mind. Especially when doing it in a flaps-only glider that didn't slip worth a damn.

Depends on the aircraft... and the pilot.

 

[gasfiltered]

The main problem is that by the time you achieve a significant increase in descent angle, your airspeed will be much too close to the stall. A slight gust, windshear, or imperfection in pilot technique could cause a stall. Remember, stalling on approach is the #1 way to cause a fatal accident.

A secondary problem with such a procedure is that it probably involves such a nose-high pitch attitude that you can’t see where you are going. A third problem is that you might not have enough energy to flare; if you try to raise the nose too quickly it will just cause an accelerated stall.

Not necessarily. As Stewartb describes elsewhere, bush pilots do this every day as a matter of course.

This is a video by Patrick Romano, who specializes in teaching people to fly the Idaho back country. He does a great job of explaining this style of approach

 

[txflyer]

In a perfect world, I try to stay above the "oops I lost my mill and I'm not going to make it" zone in the pattern.

That would be embarrasing.

But it isn't a perfect world. I had to follow a 172 the other day, I was #2 and I couldn't believe how far he went out to turn base. Totally unneccesary to go out that far. But there we were, if either one of us lost an engine we'd be in the weeds looking at the fence.

 

[kgruber]

What airplane? Did I miss that?

It seems odd that an engine would quit in 10 seconds even with the fuel supply interrupted at the tank. My plane will run for a couple of minutes at idle with the fuel selector in off position. An airplane quitting in 10 seconds from an assumed fuel supply failure would lead me to investigate a little further. Especially given that this is an unusual result during a familiar maneuver. Did it ever light back up after switching tanks?

Your Cessna 185 has header tanks.

They will probably keep you going for 5 minutes regardless of attitude.

 

[Stewartb]

Not necessarily. As Stewartb describes elsewhere, bush pilots do this every day as a matter of course.

This is a video by Patrick Romano, who specializes in teaching people to fly the Idaho back country. He does a great job of explaining this style of approach

That's a good video. Great scenery, too. I like that he included the OH CRAP landing in the Cub. Been there, done that! A long time ago I asked one of the pilots I respect the most about landing at a small strip over tall trees. I was struggling with inconsistent landings. He took a stick and drew an imaginary glide slope in the sand. Instead of coming level over the trees and dropping down he told me to start high and use a consistent glide path all the way down. The trees never come into play. Much, much easier and much, much safer, especially in the wind. Establish the attitude, maintain the airspeed and subsequent rate of descent, keep everything constant.... Bingo. It was like a light turned on. In my own flying when I start to suffer from inconsistent landings it's always because I'm too flat on the approach. Sometimes I'm a little dense and it takes me a few landings to remember the old lesson but it comes back eventually.

 

[azure]

What are we arguing about? Some airplanes slip like crap - Cessnas, Huskys, RVs. Not very useful in these airplanes.

Which Cessnas do you mean? Slipping is very useful in my Cardinal - I slip it all the time since I tend to fly high approaches, especially at home base where there is rising terrain close in to the runway most commonly favored by the wind.

Some airplanes slip really well, and are useful - Cubs, Stearmans, Pitts. A slip is a tool. Some people find it a useful tool for the type of airplane they fly and the type of flying they do. Some people do it for fun or to maintain skill. Some people can consistently land an airplane power off with a slip just as accurately as someone dragging it in with power. Some people like to do it one way, others another. I'd much rather be riding with the power-off slipper than the 3-degree dragger inner if we ever had to make an emergency landing. Many pilots are woefully unable to put an airplane down accurately without power as a crutch. So what if you don't see air taxis or airliners or whatever do slips to land? That means nothing.

I pretty much agree with all of that.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Your Cessna 185 has header tanks.

They will probably keep you going for 5 minutes regardless of attitude.

The fuel shutoff is between the header tank (there's one) and the fuel servo. Shutting off the fuel cuts off access to the header's fuel.

The header will protect the engine for a while in a radical slip and low tanks, though. It's mostly there because injection systems don't take kindly to any bubbles in the fuel. The fuel pump has a vapor return line to the header tank. A carburetor just lets the bubbles out through the bowl vent.

I think he might be flying a 180, not a 185. A 180 has a carb and it will run at idle for some time on the fuel in the bowl after the fuel is shut off. Injection systems don't usually do that.

Dan

 

[RoscoeT]

Which Cessnas do you mean? Slipping is very useful in my Cardinal - I slip it all the time since I tend to fly high approaches, especially at home base where there is rising terrain close in to the runway most commonly favored by the wind.

My experience slipping Cessnas is limited to the 150 and 172. IMO, their slipping capability left a lot to be desired - at least compared to airplanes that slip effectively.

 

[azure]

My experience slipping Cessnas is limited to the 150 and 172. IMO, their slipping capability left a lot to be desired - at least compared to airplanes that slip effectively.

It's possible then that I've never flown a plane that really slips well, because I've slipped 172s and didn't have any problem losing altitude fairly quickly that way. Maybe I should have said that the technique is still useful, even in some planes that don't slip all that well.

 

[RoscoeT]

It's possible then that I've never flown a plane that really slips well, because I've slipped 172s and didn't have any problem losing altitude fairly quickly that way.

Yes, everything's relative.