Engine out thought

[jspilot]

I was thinking about something the other day and wanted people’s input. Let’s say, God forbid, you have an engine out on a windy day. The engine quits high enough where you can glide to the airport. You set up and make a normal approach to land and follow the normal traffic pattern to land into the wind. Here’s where my thoughts went into effect. Let’s say it’s real windy( gusting above 25 knots and straight down a runway.) If you lined up for that runway straight into the wind, is’ent it a lot more likely you will have a harder time making the runway than if you landed down wind? Granted landing downwind would be brutal in these conditions but I’m always shocked at how much power it takes to maintain even 60 knots in a 172 in windy days( granted I’m normally flying with flaps out and things like that,) and I can’t imagine a 172 or similar would glide very far into those types of winds. It seems like it would be very easy to come up way short!

I’m just wondering that if your only objective is to make it onto the ground( which is likely what it would be in a pretty bad engine out,) then why would a pilot want to land into the wind in this scenario as it seems like you have less gliding distance once you turn into the wind and no way to recover from that if you are fighting a heavy head wind. At least if you went downwind you’d have a lot of help getting to the runway and it seems like more options to control glide distance( you could always pitch up if your ground speed is increasing thus regulating speed vs distance traveled without losing altitude,) whereas into the wind the only way to gain speed is to pitch down which would cause a loss of altitude while only slightly increasing distance travelled.

I practiced engine outs during training and was always taught to never extend your pattern beyond where you can safely glide back to the runway so I guess you could always just keep the pattern extremely tight but again once you turn into the wind you’d be really loosing altitude and groundspeed real quick!

Hoping someone will come along and explain this better to me!

 

[SkyDog58]

Why would you follow the normal traffic pattern with an emergency such as a dead engine? I guess you also plan on flying a wide and extended downwind?

 

[scorpio]

Into the 25 knot wind your GS in going to be very small. Downwind it will be much higher. Even if you gauge it wrong, and land short, as long as you fly it to the ground you should have a great chance of walking away.

 

[ActiveAir]

I would want the most control, which is into the wind. I would cut a tight pattern, and slip down if needed. Depends on surroundings as well. I am looking for the most controlled landing, not necessarily landing on the runway.

 

[eman1200]

I'd much rather circle above the approach end of the rwy and lose altitude there than extend downwind and make a nice pretty square pattern like u did in primary training to impress your cfi.

 

[GeorgeC]

Do whatever it takes to crash at an airport.

 

[luvflyin]

Into the 25 knot wind your GS in going to be very small. Downwind it will be much higher. Even if you gauge it wrong, and land short, as long as you fly it to the ground you should have a great chance of walking away.

Yup. Your Ground Speed is going to be what your impact speed is going to be. 25 knots on the tail vs 25 on the nose is a 50 knot difference. Of course if putting it on the tail is the difference between making an Airport and landing off airport an argument could be made for it. Like you said, as long as you 'fly it' to the ground you have a great chance of walking away. Someone around here awhile back put it this way, "don't stop flying the plane until the crash is over with."

 

[A1Topgun]

Remember all those turns around a point you practiced as a student? Spiral around the airport as you descend and note your altitude loss each 360 turn you will have a good idea of when to break out for SHORT final into the wind. Add ten knots to your glide speed to decrease your glide angle (stretch the glide) or decrease your speed to increase the glide angle (flaps) (slip if need be). Land on airport, walk away, use airplane another day.

 

[sarangan]

The goal is not just to make it onto ground, but minimize the impact energy in case you run into a tree or a rock or something else. The impact energy goes up as the square of the ground speed. Assuming 60 knots speed, 25 knot head wind will be 35 knots, and with a tailwind it will be 85 knots. The difference in impact energy is almost 6-fold (that is 600%). If the headwind collision results in a survivable accident, the other case most definitely will not.

 

[denverpilot]

Commercial applicants handle this all the time for the Power Off 180.

If the wind is blowing, turn in sooner. Maybe even no pattern at all, just point the thing at the runway and get there, if you can.

Even if not planning a Commercial ticket, go have a CFI do some Power Off 180s with ya. It’s a great lesson in energy management. Maybe something to ask to do on your next Flight Review.

 

[denverpilot]

P.S. The reason we try to always land into the wind is the lower ground speed. Physics says forces get multiplied dramatically with speed.

Groundspeed slower == better chance of survival and/or less/no injuries.

 

[bobmrg]

I was thinking about something the other day and wanted people’s input. Let’s say, God forbid, you have an engine out on a windy day. The engine quits high enough where you can glide to the airport. You set up and make a normal approach to land and follow the normal traffic pattern to land into the wind. Here’s where my thoughts went into effect. Let’s say it’s real windy( gusting above 25 knots and straight down a runway.) If you lined up for that runway straight into the wind, is’ent it a lot more likely you will have a harder time making the runway than if you landed down wind? Granted landing downwind would be brutal in these conditions but I’m always shocked at how much power it takes to maintain even 60 knots in a 172 in windy days( granted I’m normally flying with flaps out and things like that,) and I can’t imagine a 172 or similar would glide very far into those types of winds. It seems like it would be very easy to come up way short!

I’m just wondering that if your only objective is to make it onto the ground( which is likely what it would be in a pretty bad engine out,) then why would a pilot want to land into the wind in this scenario as it seems like you have less gliding distance once you turn into the wind and no way to recover from that if you are fighting a heavy head wind. At least if you went downwind you’d have a lot of help getting to the runway and it seems like more options to control glide distance( you could always pitch up if your ground speed is increasing thus regulating speed vs distance traveled without losing altitude,) whereas into the wind the only way to gain speed is to pitch down which would cause a loss of altitude while only slightly increasing distance travelled.

I practiced engine outs during training and was always taught to never extend your pattern beyond where you can safely glide back to the runway so I guess you could always just keep the pattern extremely tight but again once you turn into the wind you’d be really loosing altitude and groundspeed real quick!

Hoping someone will come along and explain this better to me!

Energy management. How you and your bird survive depends on the amount of kinetic energy (mass x velocity squared) remains at the point of impact. Landing into the wind reduces groundspeed (velocity) which is a square function, so each incremental reduction pays off in greatly reduced kinetic energy.

Bob

 

[jspilot]

Thanks for the replies guys. I get the less speed=better chance of survival argument. My only concern is, if you do happen to screw up the approach into the wind you are out of options while if you screw up down wind you seem to have some options available.

 

[PaulS]

P.S. The reason we try to always land into the wind is the lower ground speed. Physics says forces get multiplied exponentially with speed.

Groundspeed slower == better chance of survival and/or less/no injuries.

Had to fix that for you.

 

[edo2000]

This exact scenario happened to a friend of mine about 20 years ago. Didn't end well. He was flying commercially, a C206 with some oilfield perforating tools(100 lbs of steel) tied down in back. 30 kt wind out of the north. His IO520 broke a crankshaft and stopped. He was heading south and only a couple miles north of a 3500 ft paved field. He swiftly glided by the field and then turned base. About the time he turned base to final, he realized he wasn't going to make it back to the threshold. He landed short in a swampy area, the heavy tools broke loose and hit the back of his seat, driving him into the panel and permanently damaging his back. He always had a limp after that.

On the other hand, I believe it would be even more difficult to deadstick an airplane onto the runway with a 30 kt tailwind. And, your kinetic energy in case of a crash is much higher. In a windy situation, I will always try to land (or crash) into the wind.

 

[PaulS]

I'm amazed at the difference 5 or 10 knots above glide speed can make when trying to make the field. Was doing an engine out approach with my instructor and short final thought I was going to be short, I wanted to add throttle. He told me to pull the nose to best glide and we made the field easily. I was only 5 or 10 knots fast, made me a believer in hitting the speed numbers.

 

[brcase]

If landing into the wind is an option do it. Touching down on the runway will be a lot easier with a 35kt ground speed than with an 85kt ground speed. At 85kts the runway is going to go by a lot faster. Plus we don't normally practice downwind landings. The sight picture for landing will be very different than what you are used to. The chance of an overshoot is high, The chance of a stall/spin is high, due to the illusion of airspeed close to the ground.
Make your emergency landing as normal as possible. Land into the wind if possible.

Examples of illusion of speed results...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ilot-escapes-stunt-glider-smashes-runway.html

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20041020X01661&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=LA
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20001205X00561&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=LA

 

[EdFred]

Thanks for the replies guys. I get the less speed=better chance of survival argument. My only concern is, if you do happen to screw up the approach into the wind you are out of options while if you screw up down wind you seem to have some options available.

If you screw up the approach that you're going to come up short going into the wind there's nothing to say that you aren't going to screw up the approach to come up short going with the Wind. Glide slope is Glide slope you ain't going to stretch it with the wind it just changes the initial angle.

 

[denverpilot]

Had to fix that for you.

Haha. I knew. Exponents scare some people. Math is hard.

Glide slope is Glide slope you ain't going to stretch it with the wind it just changes the ... angle... of the whole thing.

In the spirit of @PaulS I fixed @EdFred ‘s comment too, if we’re talkin’ ‘bout holding best glide speed.

 

[denverpilot]

Thanks for the replies guys. I get the less speed=better chance of survival argument. My only concern is, if you do happen to screw up the approach into the wind you are out of options while if you screw up down wind you seem to have some options available.

If you have the altitude to turn around, the chances for screwing up either one are about the same.

So we practice trying not to screw any of them up.

Actually I’ll argue that point I just made. Until you’ve been flying a while, the vast majority of your landings are made upwind.

Someone doing a downwind landing for the first time almost always pushes and plants the airplane way too soon because they’re running out of runway or they get too slow on final because “everything looks too fast”.

Even some flatlanders coming to altitude for the first time fall prey to that second one and find the stall horn blaring much sooner than they thought it should because they’re focused on grounspeed and their airspeed at the higher DA is decaying rapidly.

So you probably have a bigger chance of screwing up a downwind landing if you haven’t done many before than landing with the “usual” site picture and goundspeed you’re used to seeing.

 

[tspear]

Thanks for the replies guys. I get the less speed=better chance of survival argument. My only concern is, if you do happen to screw up the approach into the wind you are out of options while if you screw up down wind you seem to have some options available.

How does landing downwind give more options? Your descent rate and air speed are the same both directions. The only change is the ground speed.

Tim

 

[Bill Watson]

I'm amazed at the difference 5 or 10 knots above glide speed can make when trying to make the field. Was doing an engine out approach with my instructor and short final thought I was going to be short, I wanted to add throttle. He told me to pull the nose to best glide and we made the field easily. I was only 5 or 10 knots fast, made me a believer in hitting the speed numbers.

True enough but be careful here.... in the example given with the high winds, you will go further over the ground flying into a 30 knot wind with an extra few knots than at best glide speed.

Generally speaking there are several factors that may drive one’s decision on where and which way to land. Downwind is not a problem if you don’t hit anything. In an off field emergency landing, first priority is landing up hill if there is a significant slope, then wind direction. Whatever you do you don’t want to end up doing what happened in that glider accident. One of the more difficult things to do is that low level emergency 180 into the upwind runway. The sensation of turning from downwind to upwind, Power off, low to the ground tends to make pilots flatten the turn while simultaneously pitching up. The resulting stall can and will kill.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[James331]

One of the reasons to practice tailwind landings pre solo.

 

[timwinters]

Thanks for the replies guys. I get the less speed=better chance of survival argument. My only concern is, if you do happen to screw up the approach into the wind you are out of options while if you screw up down wind you seem to have some options available.

If you're actually in a position to fly the pattern deadstick (I once was) then I'd suggest doing what I do on a very windy day even with a fully functioning engine. I turn base abeam the numbers or very shortly thereafter. If the runway is 3,000' or more, and almost all are, I can easily get it down and stopped in that distance, even when flying a very abbreviated final, if the wind is 20kts or greater on my nose.

Oh, and regularly practice full deflection slips on approach and slipping turns. They could be your best friend (I.e. save your life) in an engine out situation.

 

[Artimas]

The goal is not just to make it onto ground, but minimize the impact energy in case you run into a tree or a rock or something else. The impact energy goes up as the square of the ground speed. Assuming 60 knots speed, 25 knot head wind will be 35 knots, and with a tailwind it will be 85 knots. The difference in impact energy is almost 6-fold (that is 600%). If the headwind collision results in a survivable accident, the other case most definitely will not.

This.
Do whatever it takes to get down in a survivable impact, which means minimizing groundspeed. It is of paramount importance. You should also be ready to sacrifice the plane to save yourself, such as using wings, landing gear, etc. to absorb impact energy if possible to do so safely.

 

[3393RP]

Regardless of the landing direction choice, you still have to reach the airport. You will have a headwind component during 180 degrees of some portion of your maneuvering.

You're not even considering that in your construct. What are you going to do if the engine quits five miles from the airport, there's a 25 knot wind on the nose between you and the runway, and the combination of wind and altitude make it unlikely you will make the airport?

What if the same scenario exists and you're a mile from the airport?

If all of this is ignored and put aside for a different planning session, let's say your imaginary predicament places you above the airport. Generally speaking landing into the wind is the best option from a safety standpoint because of the reduced groundspeed. I'm sure other posters will refute any answer given by making up scenarios like "What will you do if a cow wanders onto the runway just as you turn final?". It's what internet forums exist for, I guess.

When you are dead stick and there's a 25 knot wind, one possibility to consider is landing on the airport grounds instead of the runway. A 25 knot crosswind is beyond the demonstrated capabilities of many small aircraft.

Suppose the wind speed is 25 knots, gusting 30 at 90 degrees, and the airport choices are Runways 13 or 18. In a normal situation, Runway 13 would be chosen, but engine failure isn't a normal situation.

Consider approaching the TDZ of Runway 13 on a heading of 090. Depending, of course, on airport size, runway length, hangar and taxiway locations, etc., the area between the thresholds of Runways 13 and 18 might be large enough for a small aircraft to touchdown and stop.

Again, depending on runway layout and length and other variables, making a decision to land on airport property rather than on a runway may be safer than attempting a dead stick landing complicated by significant winds. The engine failure combined with high winds introduces a risk factor that's not normally considered.

It's a good idea to think keenly regarding emergency planning, and consider unconventional courses of action that might make a dangerous situation more survivable.

I'm not saying my suggestion is the best for the combination of engine failure and high winds. It's a possibility to consider, and there are other possibilities that would be better at a particular time.

 

[steingar]

Depends on the runway. I’d not try to land a 3k foot runway with a 20 knot tailwind. I’ve landed 5k strips with 20 knot tailwinds.

 

[James331]

Depends on the runway. I’d not try to land a 3k foot runway with a 20 knot tailwind. I’ve landed 5k strips with 20 knot tailwinds.

With a light plane energy management plop in on the piano keys and lay into the brakes and you'll easily pull off 3k, especially with some flap tricks

 

[tspear]

With a light plane energy management plop in on the piano keys and lay into the brakes and you'll easily pull off 3k, especially with some flap tricks

Depends on the plane. As a general rule, how often can you really land on the piano keys? Most airports I fly into you have obstructions which make this rather problematic,

Tim

 

[timwinters]

I'm usually stopped by the piano keys. That's my goal on every landing.

Wait, what are you calling the piano keys...the threshold bars or the touchdown zone markers that are 1000' from the threshold?

If it's the threshold itself then...never mind!

 

[James331]

Depends on the plane. As a general rule, how often can you really land on the piano keys? Most airports I fly into you have obstructions which make this rather problematic,

Tim

If I need to, it might not be a greaser, but every time.

 

[tspear]

I'm usually stopped by the piano keys. That's my goal on every landing.

Wait, what are you calling the piano keys...the threshold bars or the touchdown zone markers that are 1000' from the threshold?

If it's the threshold itself then...never mind!

I thought you referenced the 1000-ft marker. And over half my GA flying time, you could not make such a landing. The roll out distance on an Aerostar is over 1000ft...

If I need to, it might not be a greaser, but every time.

Nice, not possible in many GA planes with standard approach speed. If you plan on a short field landing, maybe. But this adds additional risks. Hence, why I say, it depends; but as a general rule most single engine light planes can do so (since C172 is the most numerous....).

Tim

 

[denverpilot]

If you're actually in a position to fly the pattern deadstick (I once was) then I'd suggest doing what I do on a very windy day even with a fully functioning engine. I turn base abeam the numbers or very shortly thereafter. If the runway is 3,000' or more, and almost all are, I can easily get it down and stopped in that distance, even when flying a very abbreviated final, if the wind is 20kts or greater on my nose.

I’d love to keep patterns that tight or at least within engine out gliding distance for conditions, but the kids over at ATP are out there three miles away doing their “stabilized approach” thing in a Skyhawk and only once in a while I get the tower controller who knows I’ll be down and off before they even get to the airport...

It was a real pain in the azz asking for short approaches with the airliner sized pattern flight schools we have at my home airport, when trying to prep for the Commercial ride.

Turning us in front of them wasn’t always available and you’d waste four laps of the pattern trying to get far enough behind them to do it.

A couple of the controllers could get the picture and ask us to throw a 360 into our downwind for spacing so we could do a couple before we caught up to the three mile final crowd again. LOL.

I learned that 3-4 PM on a weekday is the best time to have the pattern to myself. Then I could do laps a lot faster than usual. Early crosswind, short approach. Done.

 

[James331]

...not possible in many GA planes with standard approach speed. If you plan on a short field landing, maybe. But this adds additional risks. Hence, why I say, it depends; but as a general rule most single engine light planes can do so (since C172 is the most numerous....).

Tim

You slip bro?

 

[tspear]

You slip bro?

All the time. In a Cirrus you get slip, and flaps for drag control. I got pretty good at it.... But Vso times 1.3 in many slick frames while descending does not get you down and stopped under a 1000 ft.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[James331]

All the time. In a Cirrus you get slip, and flaps for drag control. I got pretty good at it.... But Vso times 1.3 in many slick frames while descending does not get you down and stopped under a 1000 ft.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

You're not doing it right, I was down a stopped in like 1100 in a 9,000lb plane a few days ago

 

[steingar]

Were I in a draggy trainer I would happily do a 3K strip with a significant tail wind. But my airplane is fairly slick, snd can chew up some runway if I come too fast.

 

[EdFred]

Were I in a draggy trainer I would happily do a 3K strip with a significant tail wind. But my airplane is fairly slick, snd can chew up some runway if I come too fast.

If you touch down on the numbers you can still stop in well under 3000' in the Mooney. Your ground roll will not increase THAT much.

 

[steingar]

If you touch down on the numbers you can still stop in well under 3000' in the Mooney. Your ground roll will not increase THAT much.

That's actually true, and I wouldn't hesitate to land an unobstructed strip. An obstructed strip is another matter entirely, since you'll experience more wind as you approach the runway over the trees. And most of them forgot to stop growing at 50 feet.

I just landed an obstructed 3K strip last week to deliver my aircraft for annual. I wouldn't do that with a strong tailwind, its already a somewhat tight fit. To pick it up I had a buddy fly me back there in his Ovation, he swears he's never going back there again!

 

[tspear]

If you touch down on the numbers you can still stop in well under 3000' in the Mooney. Your ground roll will not increase THAT much.

10 percent for every 2 knots.
http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-...nd-increases-your-risk-of-a-landing-accident/

A 10 knot tail wind increases the landing roll by 50%. Add distance to clear 50 ft obstacle on landing and it can make for a rather interesting experience.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk