Engine out approaches

I'm curious which ones and why??


....

I could be wrong, but still haven't heard anyone convince me why they absolutely can't fly a power-off approach in their airplane (or why it would be unsafe)...ATC issues or other planes in the pattern notwithstanding.


I'm wondering the same thing -- 1000' AGL, abeam the numbers -- and there are "some" GA planes that can't make it to the runway?

Really?
 
And for that reason, while I think it should be practiced, I think the 180-degree power-off approach should be considered an emergency, not normal, procedure, and practiced only when it doesn't interfere with normal pattern operations.
I agree completely. We do it mostly at towered airports only if tower approves a short approach.

Joe
 
I'm curious which ones and why??
We can start with the Glasair I mentioned, and probably the Pilatus PC-12, and I don't know about the Malibu and other similar singles. The "why" is because of the extremely high wing loading and poor L/D ratio in landing configuration.
Nonsense...you just didn't plan your pattern and approach correctly. Let's say you fly a tight downwind 1200' from runway centerline at normal TPA. Are you saying that if you pull power abeam the numbers and immediately start a shallow 180 degree turn, that you will be short of the threshold before you complete the turn?
In some planes, yes, and in others, you'll grossly overshoot the runway with a "shallow" 180 degree turn due to the high glide speed. Have you done the numbers to see what bank angle is required for a 1200' diameter turn at varying airspeeds, and compared those speeds to the best glide speed of the bigger, heavier, faster singles?
I could be wrong, but still haven't heard anyone convince me why they absolutely can't fly a power-off approach in their airplane (or why it would be unsafe)...
As I said, some planes (even singles) will lose more than 1000 feet performing a power-off 180 degree turn in landing configuration due to their basic aerodynamics. Either the bank is so shallow they overshoot the turn or the sink rate is so high they run out of altitude before completing it.
 
Last edited:
Like Ron said, it really isn't about how tight your pattern is, it is about how much altitude you lose doing a 180 deg turn at best glide.
In my case TPA is 800' AGL, because my home airport is stuck under a shelf of Denver International's Class B, so that further complicates things.
I won't be flying my normal pattern that tight. It would require excessive descent rate and a hideous attitude. Like I said, if I flew all of my approaches so that I could make it power-off, then my wife would never ride in the airplane with me again. And I like it when she goes with me.
 
As I said, some planes (even singles) will lose more than 1000 feet performing a power-off 180 degree turn in landing configuration due to their basic aerodynamics. Either the bank is so shallow they overshoot the turn or the sink rate is so high they run out of altitude before completing it.

But when you're abeam the numbers you're not in landing configuration, are you?
 
We can start with the Glasair I mentioned, and probably the Pilatus PC-12, and I don't know about the Malibu and other similar singles. The "why" is because of the extremely high wing loading and poor L/D ratio in landing configuration.
In some planes, yes, and in others, you'll grossly overshoot the runway with a "shallow" 180 degree turn due to the high glide speed. Have you done the numbers to see what bank angle is required for a 1200' diameter turn at varying airspeeds, and compared those speeds to the best glide speed of the bigger, heavier, faster singles?
As I said, some planes (even singles) will lose more than 1000 feet performing a power-off 180 degree turn in landing configuration due to their basic aerodynamics. Either the bank is so shallow they overshoot the turn or the sink rate is so high they run out of altitude before completing it.

So what is the procedure if the engine quits somewhere enroute (beyond screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!")? Just straight in and wish for the best?

Do I need to start a "I won't ride in..." list?
 
As I said, some planes (even singles) will lose more than 1000 feet performing a power-off 180 degree turn in landing configuration due to their basic aerodynamics. Either the bank is so shallow they overshoot the turn or the sink rate is so high they run out of altitude before completing it.

A shallow bank is controlled by the pilot -- this isn't an airplane limitation.

I'll think out loud here -- help me see what I'm missing?

Let's assume a 1200 fpm descent rate, engine idle (no one's proposing true engine out practice).

Airplane is at 1000' AGL, exactly even with intended touchdown point.

Assume Vs1 of 50 knots, downwind airspeed 90 knots.

With a 40 degree bank, 180 degree turn is accomplished in 18 seconds.

At 40 degree bank, stall speed is now ~58 (load factor of 1.33)

Thus pilot can slow the airplane down and decrease the radious of the turn.

But we'll assume airplane maintains 90 knots through the manuever.

18 seconds at 1200 FPM descent rate = -20 feet of altitude per second * 18 seconds = 360 feet lost.

We're still 640' AGL at the end of the 180.

??????
 
Like Ron said, it really isn't about how tight your pattern is, it is about how much altitude you lose doing a 180 deg turn at best glide.
In my case TPA is 800' AGL, because my home airport is stuck under a shelf of Denver International's Class B, so that further complicates things.
I won't be flying my normal pattern that tight. It would require excessive descent rate and a hideous attitude. Like I said, if I flew all of my approaches so that I could make it power-off, then my wife would never ride in the airplane with me again. And I like it when she goes with me.

My wife is not an eager flier, so I make sure every flight is as smooth and drama-free as possible.

But if I lose and engine with her along, I'm pulling out all the stops to get on the ground safely -- including slips, steep descending turns, spirals -- whatever.
 
Who's looking at the VSI on final?

:skeptical:

My instructor, while turning base to final. Me, I'm looking at the runway and glancing at the Airspeed Indicator. I'm not paying attention to the VSI, as I can see the ground & runway getting closer or not and judge that way whether descent is excessive or not.
 
My instructor, while turning base to final. Me, I'm looking at the runway and glancing at the Airspeed Indicator. I'm not paying attention to the VSI, as I can see the ground & runway getting closer or not and judge that way whether descent is excessive or not.

An excessive sink rate can and should be felt and observed -- early in training the VSI will help confirm the sensations and visual cues, but after that, it's look out the window.

I wonder how many other CFIs are still old school enough to make students fly patterns with the panel covered?
 
We can start with the Glasair I mentioned, and probably the Pilatus PC-12, and I don't know about the Malibu and other similar singles. The "why" is because of the extremely high wing loading and poor L/D ratio in landing configuration.

I hate to keep talking about a Pitts, but I can't imagine it's possible any other GA plane has a worse L/D and glide ratio than a Pitts S-2C, power off, huge fat-bladed composite prop flattened out, at normal approach speed. There may be airplanes with higher wing loading, but there is nothing else that combines wing loading, drag (stubby-winged biplane, struts, flying wires, etc), and airfoil inefficiency like this airplane. Power-off approaches in this airplane are perfectly feasible. I think it would take a turbine in beta thrust on approach to beat it. :D Anyone who has never flown one, or seen one would be shocked.

You could be right about the PC-12 and Malibu - I have little knowledge and no experience with them. But in these that you mention...it's impossible to make an engine-out emergency landing without damaging the airplane?? I'm thinking about more common GA planes - Cherokee derivatives, Bonanza, Mooney, Cessnas, Cirrus, Comanche, etc. Can't imagine those can't, since I've seen them do it.

In some planes, yes, and in others, you'll grossly overshoot the runway with a "shallow" 180 degree turn due to the high glide speed. Have you done the numbers to see what bank angle is required for a 1200' diameter turn at varying airspeeds, and compared those speeds to the best glide speed of the bigger, heavier, faster singles?

OK, forget "shallow"...just make the turn and/or adjust your pattern as required to avoid turning too steeply.
 
Last edited:
I agree that a power-off approach is a maneuver that should be practiced and perfected. I don't agree that we should be regularly flying power-off approaches in the pattern.
 
But when you're abeam the numbers you're not in landing configuration, are you?
You gotta get configured sometime (you aren't suggesting holding the gear until crossing the threshold, are you?), and the best glide speed on some planes in cruise configuration is so high you'd never get around the corner without using so much bank you'd trade away too much lift and hit the ground before reaching the runway. There really are airplanes in which the PTS-described 180 power-off approach/landing from 1000 AGL abeam is either totally impossible, and many more in which it is impossible to do safely.
 
So what is the procedure if the engine quits somewhere enroute (beyond screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!")? Just straight in and wish for the best?
You aim for a much higher key position abeam -- around 2500-3000 AGL in that Glasair. However, that isn't possible to do in the normal traffic pattern, so you have to so somewhere away from other planes to practice it, and you don't ever do it as a "normal" procedure.
 
You gotta get configured sometime (you aren't suggesting holding the gear until crossing the threshold, are you?), and the best glide speed on some planes in cruise configuration is so high you'd never get around the corner without using so much bank you'd trade away too much lift and hit the ground before reaching the runway. There really are airplanes in which the PTS-described 180 power-off approach/landing from 1000 AGL abeam is either totally impossible, and many more in which it is impossible to do safely.

Ron -- forget F-100s... which GA singles have this constraint?
 
A shallow bank is controlled by the pilot -- this isn't an airplane limitation.

I'll think out loud here -- help me see what I'm missing?

Let's assume a 1200 fpm descent rate, engine idle (no one's proposing true engine out practice).

Airplane is at 1000' AGL, exactly even with intended touchdown point.

Assume Vs1 of 50 knots, downwind airspeed 90 knots.

With a 40 degree bank, 180 degree turn is accomplished in 18 seconds.

At 40 degree bank, stall speed is now ~58 (load factor of 1.33)

Thus pilot can slow the airplane down and decrease the radious of the turn.

But we'll assume airplane maintains 90 knots through the manuever.

18 seconds at 1200 FPM descent rate = -20 feet of altitude per second * 18 seconds = 360 feet lost.

We're still 640' AGL at the end of the 180.

??????
What you're missing is that a lot of planes don't fit your assumed characteristics and can't do what you described.
 
Ron -- forget F-100s... which GA singles have this constraint?
I've already mentioned a few of which I know, and I'm sure there are others. I suspect that even the Cherokee Six is pushing the envelope if up near gross weight, and probably most HP/retractables unless you hold the gear to the threshold, which ain't something you want to be doing outside of an emergency.
 
OK, forget "shallow"...just make the turn and/or adjust your pattern as required to avoid turning too steeply.
That increases the distancy to fly to the point where you run out of altitude before you reach the runway. Some production-certified GA single-engine airplanes just can't do this maneuver as described in the Commercial PTS -- they must use a higher key altitude at the abeam position to make an engine-out approach.
 
I've already mentioned a few of which I know, and I'm sure there are others. I suspect that even the Cherokee Six is pushing the envelope if up near gross weight, and probably most HP/retractables unless you hold the gear to the threshold, which ain't something you want to be doing outside of an emergency.

An A36 is a fairly large SE retract -- and power off 180s are easily within its capabilities.

:dunno:
 
An A36 is a fairly large SE retract -- and power off 180s are easily within its capabilities.
At what weight and from what key altitude? And if you say max gross and 1000 AGL, you'll have to prove it to me. I've tried such approaches in such planes, and it's right on the edge of dangerous.
 
At what weight and from what key altitude? And if you say max gross and 1000 AGL, you'll have to prove it to me. I've tried such approaches in such planes, and it's right on the edge of dangerous.

You pose two questions, and I've been consistent in stating:

1000' AGL, abeam the intended touchdown point.

You just added MGW as a factor. How often are GA singles flown at MGW?
 
You just added MGW as a factor. How often are GA singles flown at MGW?

When I was flying them? Frequently. Depends on who you are.
 
I agree that a power-off approach is a maneuver that should be practiced and perfected. I don't agree that we should be regularly flying power-off approaches in the pattern.

Why, only to avoid making your wife (or your other passengers) nervous? The approach I make in the Pitts would probably make most PILOTS nervous at first, but it's typical of the aircraft type, and in the interest of visibility and safety. I wouldn't compromise that for a passenger. But then, I guess we all gotta do what we gotta do to please the wife. :D
 
At what weight and from what key altitude? And if you say max gross and 1000 AGL, you'll have to prove it to me. I've tried such approaches in such planes, and it's right on the edge of dangerous.


Let's up the values to MGW in some slick single:

100 knot downwind speed, airplane at MGW with 80 knot stall speed
Engine out = 2000 FPM descent rate
Therefore, a 180 degree turn will consume 17 seconds
Over 17 seconds you will lose 567' of altitude

which leaves 433' AGL above the intended touchdown point.

And this is unsafe or impossible because?
 
You gotta get configured sometime (you aren't suggesting holding the gear until crossing the threshold, are you?), and the best glide speed on some planes in cruise configuration is so high you'd never get around the corner without using so much bank you'd trade away too much lift and hit the ground before reaching the runway. There really are airplanes in which the PTS-described 180 power-off approach/landing from 1000 AGL abeam is either totally impossible, and many more in which it is impossible to do safely.

No but gear down is not landing configuration, is it?

Normal pattern I will put the gear down, and carb heat on, mid field on down wind.

For a 180 degree power off landing abeam the numbers power comes out and a turn is started to the threshold probably 135 degrees or so in reality. Once we're heading for the threshold determine if we have the energy to make it or not. i.e. is it rising on the windshield.

When satisfied that we will reach the desired touchdown point add flaps as appropriate.
 
When I was flying them? Frequently. Depends on who you are.

I might have 10 flights at actual MGW in larger singles.

Sure, smaller singles such as C150s and my Chief are routinely flown at MGW.

But Ron's argument is that a slick, large single flown at MGW can't accomplish a 180 dgree trun power off from 1000' AGL.
 
If you're doing approaches AT MGW, how did you legally depart?
 
I might have 10 flights at actual MGW in larger singles.

Sure, smaller singles such as C150s and my Chief are routinely flown at MGW.

But Ron's argument is that a slick, large single flown at MGW can't accomplish a 180 dgree trun power off from 1000' AGL.

But, assume a standard rate turn, 180 degress in one minute.

A 1000 FPM descent rate, starting abeam the numbers.

The aircraft will once again be abeam the numbers when the wheels touch the ground after one minute.

Solving the equation so that the diameter of the circle = 1/2 mile or our normal pattern distance. The required spped is ~48 MPH.

Since most stall speeds are above that making the runway should be a non issue.
 
I might have 10 flights at actual MGW in larger singles.

Sure, smaller singles such as C150s and my Chief are routinely flown at MGW.

But Ron's argument is that a slick, large single flown at MGW can't accomplish a 180 dgree trun power off from 1000' AGL.

Right, and I'd say that I don't have enough time in some of the really slick singles (like the Glasair he mentioned) or the heavier singles (like a Malibu or a Pilatus) to have much of an idea one way or the other. I know that in the Lancairs I've been in the things drop like a rock once you pull the power back, and that's a plane that has killed many a pilot who's let the speed get too slow, especially in an engine out situation.

In the Mooney it was perfectly doable.
 
But, assume a standard rate turn, 180 degress in one minute.

A 1000 FPM descent rate, starting abeam the numbers.

The aircraft will once again be abeam the numbers when the wheels touch the ground after one minute.

Solving the equation so that the diameter of the circle = 1/2 mile or our normal pattern distance. The required spped is ~48 MPH.

Since most stall speeds are above that making the runway should be a non issue.


I wouldn't practice power off approaches at standard rate turns....
 
Right, and I'd say that I don't have enough time in some of the really slick singles (like the Glasair he mentioned) or the heavier singles (like a Malibu or a Pilatus) to have much of an idea one way or the other. I know that in the Lancairs I've been in the things drop like a rock once you pull the power back, and that's a plane that has killed many a pilot who's let the speed get too slow, especially in an engine out situation.

In the Mooney it was perfectly doable.

A Lancair might have a high vertical speed when gliding but it also has a relatively high forward best glide speed so the angle isn't all that steep unless you're going too slow. I would agree that if you slow to anywhere near stall speed with power off the descent angle is eye popping. Hanging the landing gear out does lower the best glide speed enough to make the glide angle noticeably worse than a Skyhawk though.
 
Let's up the values to MGW in some slick single:

100 knot downwind speed, airplane at MGW with 80 knot stall speed
Engine out = 2000 FPM descent rate
Therefore, a 180 degree turn will consume 17 seconds
Over 17 seconds you will lose 567' of altitude

which leaves 433' AGL above the intended touchdown point.

And this is unsafe or impossible because?

You'd be manuvering at 100 kt with a stall speed of 91 kt - not a lot of margin there.


Trapper John
 
If you're doing approaches AT MGW, how did you legally depart?


f35%20refuel-thumb-400x314.jpg
 
Back
Top