Engine Failure During Slip

[Dan Thomas]

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.

172s are really poor slipping airplanes. Their rudder is largely ineffective. Fly a Champ or Citabria or almost any other older design and see what a real slip is all about. Even a 150 slips better than a 172. My Jodel will slip radically and lose altitude at an alarming rate.

Dan

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

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

I've found slips to be much more effective than flaps in a Cessna 120.

 

[RoscoeT]

I've found slips to be much more effective than flaps in a Cessna 120.

I should have clarified that I meant the Cessnas that 95% of pilots fly - 150/152/172. The 120 doesn't count.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I've found slips to be much more effective than flaps in a Cessna 120.

If the flaps in a 120 are anything like the ones on the '48 170, they are more decorative than useful.

 

[Henning]

If the flaps in a 120 are anything like the ones on the '48 170, they are more decorative than useful.

They aren't even decorative on the 120...

 

[timwinters]

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.

My 182 straight tail slips wonderfully...drops like a rock in a full deflection slip with very little buffeting.

Swept tail Cessnas don't do anything as well as straight tails, IMO.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I've found slips to be much more effective than flaps in a Cessna 120.

Interesting! The cessna 120 does not have flaps unless it's been modified . Only the 140 has them and they are not very effective, certainly not like the 172B or the 180.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Interesting! The cessna 120 does not have flaps

Like I said - slips work much better.

 

[Henning]

Like I said - slips work much better.

Slowing down works great too...

 

[Fearless Tower]

Like I said - slips work much better.

Yeah, I was thinking of the 140.

 

[timwinters]

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 great video, I think I'll practice that technique the next time I fly up to home town for lunch...nice little 1600' grass strip built on deep Mississippi River bottom topsoil (read: cushions hard landings nicely), perfect for practicing this.

 

[vintage cessna]

Every one learns slips and they can be useful. However, I don't understand the logic of a strategy to be purposely high on approach to hedge against an engine failure. At least ,according to the FAA, a stabilized approach is the best way to avoid a landing mishap.

The accidents due to engine failure I hear about are enroute and take off phases of flight. Can't say I have heard of any engine failures while in the pattern. Not sure what amount of risk is being mitigated by being high on approach while at the same time increasing risk of a landing mishap.

 

[timwinters]

Every one learns slips and they can be useful. However, I don't understand the logic of a strategy to be purposely high on approach to hedge against an engine failure. At least ,according to the FAA, a stabilized approach is the best way to avoid teaching pilots real airmanship.

FTFY...

And, yes, a stabilized approach reduces the number of landing mishaps during training...but I'd bet that it increases them long term due to low time pilots being unable to really land an airplane. Takes too long to get the feel for that...truly...

Thank god my instructor taught me power-off approaches (as well as stabilized approaches, but he recommended power-off) since I had a complete engine failure with less than 300 hours under my belt.

 

[vintage cessna]

FTFY...

And, yes, a stabilized approach reduces the number of landing mishaps during training...but I'd bet that it increases them long term due to low time pilots being unable to really land an airplane. Takes too long to get the feel for that...truly...

Thank god my instructor taught me power-off approaches (as well as stabilized approaches, but he recommended power-off) since I had a complete engine failure with less than 300 hours under my belt.

Where did I say stabilized meant power? Power off approaches can be quite stable and my preferred method.

 

[Fearless Tower]

FTFY...

And, yes, a stabilized approach reduces the number of landing mishaps during training...but I'd bet that it increases them long term due to low time pilots being unable to really land an airplane. Takes too long to get the feel for that...truly...

Thank god my instructor taught me power-off approaches (as well as stabilized approaches, but he recommended power-off) since I had a complete engine failure with less than 300 hours under my belt.

Excellent point. To be truly one with the airplane, I believe you need to be able to land it in multiple configurations. I'm obviously making a general statement as I am sure someone will come along and say that in XXXX plane XXXX doesn't work, but you really should be comfortable landing the airplane in different situations.

Stabilized approaches are fine, but there may be times (like an engine failure or unexpected traffic in the pattern) where it isn't an option.

 

[azure]

Every one learns slips and they can be useful. However, I don't understand the logic of a strategy to be purposely high on approach to hedge against an engine failure. At least ,according to the FAA, a stabilized approach is the best way to avoid a landing mishap.

While I agree with you that a power-off approach can be very stable, I'm pretty sure the FAA's definition of "stabilized approach" entails using partial power.

The accidents due to engine failure I hear about are enroute and take off phases of flight. Can't say I have heard of any engine failures while in the pattern. Not sure what amount of risk is being mitigated by being high on approach while at the same time increasing risk of a landing mishap.

If true it's probably a statistical artifact, since more flight hours are spent enroute than in the pattern. I used to think it was silly to fly the pattern so as always to be within glide distance of a runway, unless one planned every route using the same criterion. But now I think that while the chances of an engine out in the pattern may be no greater, the consequences if it happens there are likelier to be worse since the lower you are, the fewer options you have for where to put down.

Today I tend to fly high approaches and slip if necessary to put the plane where I want it. As I stated earlier, I do this especially at home base because of terrain, but I do it elsewhere as well.

 

[vintage cessna]

Excellent point. To be truly one with the airplane, I believe you need to be able to land it in multiple configurations. I'm obviously making a general statement as I am sure someone will come along and say that in XXXX plane XXXX doesn't work, but you really should be comfortable landing the airplane in different situations.

Stabilized approaches are fine, but there may be times (like an engine failure or unexpected traffic in the pattern) where it isn't an option.

No doubt. But Winters says his instructor taught him power off approaches as well as stabilized approaches, as if a power off approach is not a stable approach. What I was questioning was the strategy of routinely being purposely high on approach as a hedge against engine failure.

 

[FastEddieB]

Every one learns slips and they can be useful. However, I don't understand the logic of a strategy to be purposely high on approach to hedge against an engine failure. At least ,according to the FAA, a stabilized approach is the best way to avoid a landing mishap.

Sure, but can't one fly a stabilized, high approach?

Unless conditions are prefect, one must adjust one's glidepath to cope with changing conditions. I don't see a huge difference between fine tuning the glidepath with small slips or with small power changes or a combination of both.

Needing power to make the runway on final seems an unnecessary risk, at least in small GA piston planes on VFR approaches.

But whatever works!

 

[vintage cessna]

While I agree with you that a power-off approach can be very stable, I'm pretty sure the FAA's definition of "stabilized approach" entails using partial power.

If true it's probably a statistical artifact, since more flight hours are spent enroute than in the pattern. I used to think it was silly to fly the pattern so as always to be within glide distance of a runway, unless one planned every route using the same criterion. But now I think that while the chances of an engine out in the pattern may be no greater, the consequences if it happens there are likelier to be worse since the lower you are, the fewer options you have for where to put down.

Today I tend to fly high approaches and slip if necessary to put the plane where I want it. As I stated earlier, I do this especially at home base because of terrain, but I do it elsewhere as well.

In the FAA AFH it just describes a stabilized approach as maintaining a constant glide angle to a predetermined landing spot. That doesn't imply power. If it makes you feel better to be higher than necessary , fine. I think it is possible to fly a pattern , stay within gliding distance and fly a stabilized approach all at the same time without the need to dump altitude while on short final. While everyone here I'm sure is a hot stick, I think the practice of purposely being high on approach can lead to unfortunate incidents for the average Private Pilot, while the risk that is supposedly mitigated illusionary.

 

[Stewartb]

I can't initiate or maintain flight without power. How shall I deal with that?

Airspeed control and slow flight are important skills. More guys need to subscribe to that.

 

[RoscoeT]

However, I don't understand the logic of a strategy to be purposely high on approach to hedge against an engine failure. At least ,according to the FAA, a stabilized approach is the best way to avoid a landing mishap.

In the FAA AFH it just describes a stabilized approach as maintaining a constant glide angle to a predetermined landing spot.

Do you not realize that you can turn final a little high and then fly a constant airspeed/angle approach using a slip? So where are all these NTSB reports of pilots having landing mishaps due to slipping it in?

BTW....the "logic" of this is to develop some precision skill with the airplane. Yes, engine failure is unlikely, but there is NO COST to flying high and slipping. You are also developing skill that could come in very handy when you really do lose an engine. Most pilots only occasionally fly power off approaches, or "simulated engine out" emergency practice. Most of these I see at the flight school are sadly unable to put the plane down with any semblance of precision. They'd be lucky to stuff their 172 in a 3000' field.

To each their own. Some pilots have aspirations beyond mediocrity.

 

[Stewartb]

So guys who don't slip to landings are mediocre pilots? Seriously? What a silly statement. Thanks for the laugh on a dreary Thursday morning!

 

[MAKG1]

there is NO COST to flying high and slipping.

I guess you never fly with passengers.

There is definitely a cost.

 

[vdehart]

Hey guys, are we forgetting that being a little too high and being able to slip the airplane effectively (after the engine failure which ironically was caused by the same maneuver) are the reason I was able to save myself, the student, and the airplane...? Altitude can never be gained without an engine. Anybody who preaches an approach that wouldn't permit a glide to the runway is taking an unnecessary risk in a light aircraft.

But I also agree that a slip shouldn't need to be performed on a good stabilized approach, but it is always a tool that every pilot should be comfortable with. I would have found myself in the side of an office building if it weren't for the slip...

 

[MAKG1]

Hey guys, are we forgetting that being a little too high and being able to slip the airplane effectively (after the engine failure which ironically was caused by the same maneuver) are the reason I was able to save myself, the student, and the airplane...? Altitude can never be gained without an engine. Anybody who preaches an approach that wouldn't permit a glide to the runway is taking an unnecessary risk in a light aircraft.

Altitude can indeed be gained without an engine, sometimes, but only a fool will depend on it.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't be able to slip to a landing. The issue is, should you do it routinely? I say it's to be practiced in CAVU conditions and low traffic with no passengers. Being intentionally (very) high makes it unnecessarily difficult for others to see you in the pattern, because you're in the wrong place. And it is not at all comfortable for passengers.

 

[vintage cessna]

Hey guys, are we forgetting that being a little too high and being able to slip the airplane effectively (after the engine failure which ironically was caused by the same maneuver) are the reason I was able to save myself, the student, and the airplane...? Altitude can never be gained without an engine. Anybody who preaches an approach that wouldn't permit a glide to the runway is taking an unnecessary risk in a light aircraft.

But I also agree that a slip shouldn't need to be performed on a good stabilized approach, but it is always a tool that every pilot should be comfortable with. I would have found myself in the side of an office building if it weren't for the slip...

Other than your post being somewhat illogical, let me say I do not advocate being outside gliding distance in the pattern, although sometimes it is unavoidable .

What I do question is a risk mitigation strategy that routinely requires a slip on approach.

 

[Stewartb]

Hey guys, are we forgetting that being a little too high and being able to slip the airplane effectively (after the engine failure which ironically was caused by the same maneuver) are the reason I was able to save myself, the student, and the airplane...? Altitude can never be gained without an engine. Anybody who preaches an approach that wouldn't permit a glide to the runway is taking an unnecessary risk in a light aircraft.

But I also agree that a slip shouldn't need to be performed on a good stabilized approach, but it is always a tool that every pilot should be comfortable with. I would have found myself in the side of an office building if it weren't for the slip...

You stated that the slip caused the engine failure during a practice maneuver. Was your approach the same as a normal pattern entry?

What kind of airplane was it? Did you ever say? I'm interested in the fuel issue more than the slip.

 

[Henning]

Every one learns slips and they can be useful. However, I don't understand the logic of a strategy to be purposely high on approach to hedge against an engine failure. At least ,according to the FAA, a stabilized approach is the best way to avoid a landing mishap.

The accidents due to engine failure I hear about are enroute and take off phases of flight. Can't say I have heard of any engine failures while in the pattern. Not sure what amount of risk is being mitigated by being high on approach while at the same time increasing risk of a landing mishap.

Both the 'too high on approach' and 'dragging it in' are just crutches against having to teach people to judge the approach properly; which admittedly takes time. Drag in approaches are the FAA way to teach them because drag in approaches are what airliners use, and the FAA is concerned about making airline pilots, not GA pilots, and primacy counts.

 

[vintage cessna]

Both the 'too high on approach' and 'dragging it in' are just crutches against having to teach people to judge the approach properly; which admittedly takes time. Drag in approaches are the FAA way to teach them because drag in approaches are what airliners use, and the FAA is concerned about making airline pilots, not GA pilots, and primacy counts.

I personally don't know of any instructor that teaches "the dragging it in " technique except for short field landings.

I think most instructors teach landings the way you think it should be done, but it seems like the first thing people forget is to make adjustments for wind drift in the pattern.

 

[Henning]

I personally don't know of any instructor that teaches "the dragging it in " technique except for short field landings.

I think most instructors teach landings the way you think it should be done, but it seems like the first thing people forget is to make adjustments for wind drift in the pattern.

Every landing I was taught as PPL was a drag in landing requiring power to be maintained until the very end. If you can't pull the throttle from abeam the numbers and make the threshold in your normal pattern, you are dragging it in.

 

[vintage cessna]

Every landing I was taught as PPL was a drag in landing requiring power to be maintained until the very end. If you can't pull the throttle from abeam the numbers and make the threshold in your normal pattern, you are dragging it in.

Not sure what you mean. But if you were taught to reduce power on downwind and then on final pull to idle, I don't consider that "dragging it in".

 

[RoscoeT]

So guys who don't slip to landings are mediocre pilots? Seriously? What a silly statement. Thanks for the laugh on a dreary Thursday morning!

Not what I said dude. But I know comment spinning is a sport on the internet.

But if you're significantly more likely to wreck your airplane from a slipping approach, or you can't put your airplane down close to where you want without power, then you are mediocre. But I don't know you, only you can assess that.

 

[MAKG1]

Every landing I was taught as PPL was a drag in landing requiring power to be maintained until the very end. If you can't pull the throttle from abeam the numbers and make the threshold in your normal pattern, you are dragging it in.

I beg to differ.

The term refers to approaching behind the power curve, where you need a LOT of power to maintain your airspeed on final.

If the airplane "wants" to approach at a low power such as 1500 RPM or 16 inches, that's a very different thing than approaching with the stall warning going off at much higher power. You'll get a real short landing on the latter if you don't screw up.

There is nothing wrong with a stabilized approach. Most of us don't fly radial engines anymore.

 

[RoscoeT]

The term refers to approaching behind the power curve, where you need a LOT of power to maintain your airspeed on final.

I didn't realize there was an official definition for "dragging it in". Is this in the FAR/AIM?

 

[vintage cessna]

Not what I said dude. But I know comment spinning is a sport on the internet.

But if you're significantly more likely to wreck your airplane from a slipping approach, or you can't put your airplane down close to where you want without power, then you are mediocre. But I don't know you, only you can assess that.

Aren't most Private Pilots mediocre? How good can someone be flying an average of 50 hours a year?

 

[RoscoeT]

Aren't most Private Pilots mediocre? How good can someone be flying an average of 50 hours a year?

Yes. For pilots who really want to avoid being mediocre, you can build a lot of skill and work on a lot of stuff in just 50 hrs a year if you put in the effort. Few pilots do. Most just drone around and take what they get.

 

[vintage cessna]

Yes. For pilots who really want to avoid being mediocre, you can build a lot of skill and work on a lot of stuff in just 50 hrs a year if you put in the effort. Few pilots do. Most just drone around and take what they get.

Whatever. I just don't think it is a good thing for the average pilot to adopt a stategy that higher is better on approach as a hedge against an engine failure. What little risk that is mitigated is more than offset by the gain of risk.

Better to just pay more attention to what the wind is doing rather than being too high/low or overshooting or overly concerned about an engine failure.

 

[RoscoeT]

What little risk that is mitigated is more than offset by the gain of risk.

Still looking for the NTSB reports. Good thing nobody told all those Cub, Champ, Pitts, and Stearman pilots that they are dangerous.

 

[vintage cessna]

Still looking for the NTSB reports. Good thing nobody told all those Cub, Champ, Pitts, and Stearman pilots that they are dangerous.

A lot of mishaps don't generate NTSB reports. What happens, not infrequently I think, is that when someone realizes they are running out of runway they force it on and subsequently experience a " mishap " or incident.

Of course there are many reasons why this shouldn't happen but it does. Which is why I say for the average pilot being higher than necessary is maybe not such a good thing.

 

[RoscoeT]

Which is why I say for the average pilot being higher than necessary is maybe not such a good thing.

Since there's no evidence of this, this falls into "gut feel" opinion stuff. Your opinion is noted. Everyone has them, and they are wide-ranging.