Hypothetical emergency

[TMetzinger]

I'm posting this scenario to provoke some thought on how to handle a situation. I'd appreciate it if the comments relate to the questions I ask, and don't take me to task on how improbable or impossible the scenario may be.

The scenario:
Flying along in a single engine airplane, on autopilot, you disengage the autopilot and find that you can't roll the airplane. Reengaging/disengaging the autopilot, pulling the breakers, etc... no difference. Your ailerons are pretty much locked, fortunately in the neutral position. Pitch and yaw control is fine, and you check and see that the ailerons are still locked even at different pitch settings. You have loved ones in the airplane.

Your initial steps:
You contact ATC, declare an emergency, and head for the nearest air carrier airport. You can make gentle turns with rudder, and pick up a wing with rudder as neccesary, so flying the airplane is a pain but doable. You tell ATC you want a long, straight in approach to the runway most into the wind, and you tell them you want the trucks rolled and waiting. You get vectored and are now on a 3 mile final, runway in sight. You remember that you're going to unlatch the doors on short final.

The question(s) for discussion:

How are you going to configure the airplane for landing, and why?

As I see it, you've got two choices. Configuring for minimum airspeed reduces the energy that needs to be dissipated and increases survivability in the event you lose control after touchdown. Keeping the airplane clean and landing faster will make the rudder more effective and increase the controllability of the airplane. Runway length isn't an issue, you've got 9000+ feet. Keeping the airplane pretty isn't a concern either - it belongs to the insurance company.

So, what say you?

Special bonus discussion - if a full airframe recovery parachute was available to you - would you activate it?

 

[KennyFlys]

You contact ATC, declare an emergency, and head for the nearest air carrier airport. You can make gentle turns with rudder, and pick up a wing with rudder as necessary, so flying the airplane is a pain but doable. You tell ATC you want a long, straight in approach to the runway most into the wind, and you tell them you want the trucks rolled and waiting. You get vectored and are now on a 3 mile final, runway in sight. You remember that you're going to unlatch the doors on short final.

The question(s) for discussion:

How are you going to configure the airplane for landing, and why?

As I see it, you've got two choices. Configuring for minimum airspeed reduces the energy that needs to be dissipated and increases survivability in the event you lose control after touchdown. Keeping the airplane clean and landing faster will make the rudder more effective and increase the controllability of the airplane. Runway length isn't an issue, you've got 9000+ feet. Keeping the airplane pretty isn't a concern either - it belongs to the insurance company.

You pretty much answered it there. My only concern would be winds more favorable to runway alignment since I could not control ailerons to counter the rudder for a normal crosswind landing.

I may elect for a longer final to better verify the controllability at lower altitude with regard to winds.

Special bonus discussion - if a full airframe recovery parachute was available to you - would you activate it?

If wind was not a factor, no. If winds were strong and having good control upon touch down was a huge question, I may. I'd rather not end up in a cartwheel like Flight 232.

If I did pull the chute, I'd establish MCA before doing so. And, preferably over a field with emergency services on standby.

 

[TMetzinger]

You pretty much answered it there. My only concern would be winds more favorable to runway alignment since I could not control ailerons to counter the rudder for a normal crosswind landing.

I may elect for a longer final to better verify the controllability at lower altitude with regard to winds.


If wind was not a factor, no. If winds were strong and having good control upon touch down was a huge question, I may. I'd rather not end up in a cartwheel like Flight 232.

If I did pull the chute, I'd establish MCA before doing so. And, preferably over a field with emergency services on standby.

Sorry - are you landing dirty and slow, or clean and fast?

 

[rmciottijr]

Clean and Fast, Would not pull the parachute

 

[poadeleted20]

Depends on what sort of single-engine airplane, which could be anything from a Cessna 150 to a PC-12. IOW, it's all situations and conditions at the time, and I can't give you a reliable answer based on the limited information presented.

 

[kevin47881]

As stated above, clean and fast. Save the chute for another day.

 

[KennyFlys]

Sorry - are you landing dirty and slow, or clean and fast?

Oops, I fogot to address that. Again, that really depends on the winds. If I have a long, wide runway I may elect a bit faster for better directional control until I'm on the ground.

 

[AdamZ]

Fast- I wanna make the field and runway is no issue
Clean- What ever is grabbing the alierons may also mess with both or worse one of the flaps
Door-open
Don't cut the Mixture cause its still flyable
Same with electronics.

As for the chute I dunno probably not if the wind is favorable. Just as big a question for me is do you do a carrier landing if necessary or try a go around. I'm not likely to go around as it dosen't sound like its gonna make the turns necessary for the pattern. BTW I'm assuming something like a cherokee.

 

[Teller1900]

No chute (unless it's a kicking cross wind), door open. Maybe slightly faster than usual, but I wouldn't want too much extra speed. I haven't flown a single in a while, but the Seminole had great rudder authority, even at low airspeed. If I have no way of correcting for a cross wind, or holding a wing down through a gust, I want to get on the ground as firmly as possible, as quickly as possible.
I certainly wouldn't come in any slower than a normal approach, but probably not much faster, either. I'd probably stay clean, or use only partial flaps, though, to minimize the changes in handling and possible effects of wind through final. Otherwise, it'd be a fairly normal approach...just making the folks in the back a little more dizzy than usual.

 

[jesse]

Would not pull the parachute

Save the chute for another day.

As for the chute I dunno probably not if the wind is favorable.

No chute (unless it's a kicking cross wind)

It really depends on the airplane. If I was in something like a Pitts I'd be jumping out of the thing with my parachute that I hopefully was wearing. Trying to land something squirrelly without ailerons would be a death wish.

If I was in a Cessna 172--I wouldn't likely be wearing a parachute and I'd be trying to land the thing.

If I was in a Cirrus SR22--It depends how controllable it was. If it seemed OK I'd probably try and land. If I looked out the window and saw the aileron coming off I'd be pulling the chute and living another day like this guy did in his Cirrus: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021008X05290&key=1

 

[sba55]

In my plane, I'd burn almost all my fuel, and then land without flaps (doesn't make that much of a difference anyways, only 10 knots), fairly fast so I can get a good feel for conditions on the ground, doors closed (opening them severely compromises the integrity of the frame, and I've got emergency escapes for the windows, so I can get rid of them completely beforehand - interesting story, actually: at Oshkosh last year, the FAA held a safety seminar where they specifically recommended NOT opening the door if there are other ways of exiting the airplane).

With just a few gallons of fuel, this sound like a very survivable situation to me. Probably no airplane damage, either, unless there are some completely unexpected control issues down low.

-Felix

 

[Everskyward]

Since it seems like no one has mentioned it, I'd would do a controllability check at altitude to see how the airplane handled at slower airspeeds and then make the decision.

 

[mikea]

Fly with rudder.

 

[KennyFlys]

Since it seems like no one has mentioned it, I'd would do a controllability check at altitude to see how the airplane handled at slower airspeeds and then make the decision.

I mentioned similar by making a long final to determine what was happening at low atltiude in the final couple hundred feet before touching down.

 

[rottydaddy]

Assuming it's what I normally fly, it'd be worth it to experiment immediately- slow down and try some flaps.

Even with a long runway waiting, it just makes sense to come in dirtied-up, at a point where there's less energy but still good control with rudder.

I've done some fairly good turns with rudder alone at MCA with everything hanging out... wouldn't that be a sensible approach for a landing with stuck ailerons?

I guess my yardstick would be how much roll I could induce with rudder... you can slew the nose all you want in a crosswind landing, but if you can't get some roll going you will not be able to check your drift very much, and very likely end up side-loading the gear.
But then again, without aileron, I'm not sure where you'd be as you plant the upwind main, then try to keep the nose on the centerline with rudder... hmmm... it would be interesting.

In any case, I'd try to get to the widest runway possible so I could land "corner-to-corner", if there's any x-wind at all.

 

[TMetzinger]

Adam made a terrific point - what if what happened to hang up the ailerons messed with the flap control system? Depending on the airplane, that could be a definite possibility.

Good points made on the doors too. I was thinking of a Cessna/Piper product, from a warrior to a 182, so other exits may not be the same. Having rescue standing by might also tilt the odds towards keeping the doors closed - if you can be smothered in foam quickly, the need to evacuate might not be as high, and you might prefer the structural integrity, and then let the rescue guys cut you out as necessary.

Burning off the extra fuel makes sense - take it down to the minimum for the approach and a second or third try - which in these types of airplanes is less than 10 gallons.

Not sure about the controllability check at altitude. It sounds like a good idea, but do I want to take the risk of testing something (that I can't really do anything about anyway) at altitude, or do I wait and take the chance closer to the ground (and fire and rescue?) I guess at altitude I would try a gradual slowdown to my clean approach speed, but I would not try to dirty up the airplane and slow further.

Based on the discussion - I think I'd land clean, at minimum speed. I wouldn't use the flaps at all.

I wouldn't use the chute for this unless the situation got worse. It would depend on the minimum save altitude. If the minimum altitude is low enough, then it becomes more attractive as there's less likelihood that you will drift into a worse outcome.

 

[etsisk]

I appreciated the caution about the flaps - it hadn't occurred to me (big surprise there, huh? ) but there's no situation that asymmetrical flaps can't and won't make much, much worse.

I don't know why I wouldn't have the door open in the cherokee - getting out is pretty high in my order of importance for things to do in that situation.

If it looked like I was hugely side loading, I would try and go around (if I thought I could with greater safety than going ahead and landing). If it ended up looking like I could not land without side loading the gear, no matter what, well, see ya, gear! It was nice knowing ya!

 

[etsisk]

And Tim, THANK YOU for an EXCELLENT thread!

 

[Lance F]

I'm kind of a low energy is better kind of guy as far as landings are concerned. That means I want the same numbers and configuration of a normal landing. Flaps, airspeeds, etc. It's fine to call for the equipment, but I would NOT be planning to be turning the airplane over to the insurance company. My plan (mental attitude) would be a nice touchdown, roll out and taxi off. To me the most important thing would be have a runway with the winds either being calm or right down it.

 

[SCCutler]

What Lance said.

I would do a little low-speed practice at altitude to establish my controllability parameters, and unless that showed me something I could not tolerate, I plan for gear-down, long runway into the wind, flaps as prudent.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'm kind of a low energy is better kind of guy as far as landings are concerned. That means I want the same numbers and configuration of a normal landing. Flaps, airspeeds, etc. It's fine to call for the equipment, but I would NOT be planning to be turning the airplane over to the insurance company. My plan (mental attitude) would be a nice touchdown, roll out and taxi off. To me the most important thing would be have a runway with the winds either being calm or right down it.

Well, I agree that the pilot shouldn't PLAN to damage the airplane (more on this later). The safest thing would be to land successfully, under control, so that should be the goal, and the plan should be aimed toward that goal.

But the pilots prime job is to protect the lives of the people on the airplane. Any course of action that interferes with that prime job should not be done. If sacrificing the airplane would increase the odds of survival, not only should you do it, I'd argue you have a duty to do it. That gives me an idea for another discussion.

 

[Lance F]

Well, I agree that the pilot shouldn't PLAN to damage the airplane (more on this later). The safest thing would be to land successfully, under control, so that should be the goal, and the plan should be aimed toward that goal.

But the pilots prime job is to protect the lives of the people on the airplane. Any course of action that interferes with that prime job should not be done. If sacrificing the airplane would increase the odds of survival, not only should you do it, I'd argue you have a duty to do it. That gives me an idea for another discussion.

Tim, I don't disagree with your prime directive a bit. BUT in the emergency scenario you posed I say the fewer non-normal things you do the better the chances are for the people on the airplane. In your scenario you've proven you have control with the rudder. Now with that in mind why do a no flap, higher speed than normal, higher energy than normal (even that 10 kts higher landing speed without flaps someone mentioned above is significant because the energy vs. speed is exponential)? Doing this could be endangering pilot and passengers more not less. I absolutely do not see this situation as one where "sacrificing the airplane would increase the odds of survival."

 

[AdamZ]

Question for the guys who are suggesting a go around. How are you going to get the plane aournd the pattern with out alierons and line it up with the runway? Yes I know how to turn the plane in slow flight but remember the go around takes out the element of the long straight in. And do you really want to be taking the plane that far out to reset up for a long straight in?

 

[Pi1otguy]

Assuming >5000' runway I'd firmly fly it into the ground clean and touchdown at whatever speed a near level attitude permits (no flare). Then I'd worry about stopping. As to burning off the avgas I'd probably not give it a second thought provided my tanks aren't nearly full. I'm not skilled enough to run it below 10 gal and I figure 10 gals can kill me as much as 30. Even though energy is MV2 I'd like to believe many small ASELs can stop in under 3500' even from higher touchdown speeds.

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim, I don't disagree with your prime directive a bit. BUT in the emergency scenario you posed I say the fewer non-normal things you do the better the chances are for the people on the airplane. In your scenario you've proven you have control with the rudder. Now with that in mind why do a no flap, higher speed than normal, higher energy than normal (even that 10 kts higher landing speed without flaps someone mentioned above is significant because the energy vs. speed is exponential)? Doing this could be endangering pilot and passengers more not less. I absolutely do not see this situation as one where "sacrificing the airplane would increase the odds of survival."

I would do that because I don't know that I will have adequate rudder effectiveness at the slower speeds of a full-flap landing, and thus if a wing drops or something else happens I may not be able to correct for it with rudder alone, while at a higher speed I'll have more rudder authority.
Also, as noted - unless I know what malfed in the wing to block the ailerons, I would be concerned that it might cause problems with the flaps too. And an asymmetrical flap deployment with locked ailerons would be high on my list of things to avoid.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Question for the guys who are suggesting a go around. How are you going to get the plane aournd the pattern with out alierons and line it up with the runway?

We're talking AILERONS here. It isn't THAT big a deal. Not as difficult as, say, an elevator frozen in position.

Yes I know how to turn the plane in slow flight but remember the go around takes out the element of the long straight in.

Huh? I don't understand why a go around would take out that element.

And do you really want to be taking the plane that far out to reset up for a long straight in?

Why not? Like I said, frozen ailerons aren't THAT big a deal as long as they are neutral.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I would do basically a longer final, but maybe not THAT much longer, and maybe half flaps or so. And maybe just a little faster. We are talking loss of ailerons here, NOT elevator. Unless I missed something. You can steer with the rudder. Not that graceful but not that huge a deal.

Other than that, what is the big deal? What am I missing?

 

[Lance F]

Every student pilot has done straight ahead stall entries easily keeping the wings level with just the rudder. That proves the rudder works just fine at Vs or Vso. Why in the world fly faster than 1.3 * Vso, the NORMAL approach speed, for more rudder effectiveness?

Those who think flying faster can make landings easier or safer need a little Mooney time.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Depending on the winds and the condition of the grassy areas, why make it a runway? Depending on the plane and airport, maybe just land into the wind. The roll out isn't going to be very long on anything I'd be flying, even on a runway.

 

[cwyckham]

I'm leaning strongly towards bucking the trend here and saying pop the chute. There may be conditions when I could get in fine (virtually no wind and no direct sun), but I don't have the confidence all you folks seem to have. Why would I risk my life to save an aircraft? In typical conditions with the skill level I used to have when flying regularly (which was adequate but not spectacular), I'd say I'd have a 50/50 chance of staying lined up with the runway during final approach at best. Often there are bad things off the runway that I'd rather not hit.

As people have pointed out, aircraft are roll-yaw coupled so that you can use the rudder to pick up a wing. At altitude, you can probably use quick rudder inputs to keep your wing level, then slower inputs to creep around corners without rolling too much. A well rigged aircraft should be ok if the ailerons really did jam in the neutral position (though I've flown aircraft that needed constant aileron input just to stay level due to poor rigging). The inherent stability of a well rigged aircraft should keep you going just fine until you get to the airport or other landing area.

When practicing stalls at altitude, we're seldom in much turbulence, and if the right wing drops it's usually because we were yawing a bit to the right anyways. Left rudder will pick up wing and orient us back roughly where we were going. However, down in the turbulent boundary layer where we have to land, the right wing may be dropping because of a wind gust or a thermal or a down draft. In this case, once you pick up the wing with left rudder, you'll be pointing significantly in the wrong direction. You also won't have time to correct heading and stay lined up with the runway without jamming the right rudder quickly, which will just drop the wing again.

Now if you're lucky, the next wind gust will straighten you out again, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Since I don't have a chute on the aircraft I fly, I'd have to consider how I'd land. Fast landing means that I'm less prone to wind gusts, but I don't think that would help so much and if I'm gonna crash, I'd rather crash slow. I'd be more inclined to land as slow as possible and give up on landing exactly on the runway. I'd just not want to be pointed at anything too large or solid.

In fact, if I had to choose between the large farmer's field (or lake) and a long landing strip with hangers or trees on either side, I'd take the large area so it doesn't matter which direction I land in.

 

[TMetzinger]

On popping the chute: There's a chance of spinal injury when you ride the chute down, and it goes up when the chute is a retrofit to an older airplane that may not have the energy absorbing seats that Cirri have. I remember hearing of two broken backs in Cirrus chute recoveries as well.

So the chute certainly beats dying, but I don't think it beats landing in control, even if you rip the gear off in your "controlled" landing.

 

[sba55]

I agree with Tim (and Greg, indirectly) regarding the chute. As far as emergencies go, this one here isn't bad at all. You still have an engine, all avionics, plane's still flying just fine, you just can't turn quickly. With some planning, it should be a non event.

Sort of like loosing the gear pump or something like that.

-Felix

 

[jesse]

I agree with Tim (and Greg, indirectly) regarding the chute. As far as emergencies go, this one here isn't bad at all. You still have an engine, all avionics, plane's still flying just fine, you just can't turn quickly. With some planning, it should be a non event.

Sort of like loosing the gear pump or something like that.

-Felix

As do I. If the ailerons were truly jammed neutral I would be trying to land it. I wouldn't be messing with them. Neutral is something that I can deal with..I don't have a desire to make it worse.

Pulling the chute is something I hope I never have to do. If the airplane were equipped with the chute and the ailerons weren't neutral it would be worth considering.

 

[cwyckham]

I agree with Tim (and Greg, indirectly) regarding the chute. As far as emergencies go, this one here isn't bad at all. You still have an engine, all avionics, plane's still flying just fine, you just can't turn quickly. With some planning, it should be a non event.

Sort of like loosing the gear pump or something like that.

-Felix

I guess I think that there's a bit more to it than just not being able to turn quickly. For argument's sake, let's say there's not much wind but there's a parking lot just off the approach end of the runway and it's really sunny out. You've managed to keep her lined up with the runway all the way down and now you're 50' up as you cross the parking lot. A tight, strong thermal is present on the parking lot, and your left wing goes right through the core. You now find yourself in a 20 degree bank to the right. You're still lined up with the centerline, though. What do you do? What happens?

If you "pick up the wing" with your rudder, aren't you going to end up heading about 30 degrees to your left by the time the wings are level? If you stay in the bank, you'll turn right by the same amount by the time you touch down, so that doesn't work either. Perhaps you can give enough opposite rudder to maintain heading but not enough to pick up the wing. You'll land with one wing very low, perhaps enough to catch and cartwheel, and you'll be in a side slip, so you'll have drifted off centerline since there's no wind.

With any wind you'd have a similar effect due to turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer and off of trees, etc. It's just easier to visualize with thermal since it acts as a single perturbation and then leaves you alone after you fly out of it.

 

[TMetzinger]

I guess I think that there's a bit more to it than just not being able to turn quickly. For argument's sake, let's say there's not much wind but there's a parking lot just off the approach end of the runway and it's really sunny out. You've managed to keep her lined up with the runway all the way down and now you're 50' up as you cross the parking lot. A tight, strong thermal is present on the parking lot, and your left wing goes right through the core. You now find yourself in a 20 degree bank to the right. You're still lined up with the centerline, though. What do you do? What happens?

If you "pick up the wing" with your rudder, aren't you going to end up heading about 30 degrees to your left by the time the wings are level? If you stay in the bank, you'll turn right by the same amount by the time you touch down, so that doesn't work either. Perhaps you can give enough opposite rudder to maintain heading but not enough to pick up the wing. You'll land with one wing very low, perhaps enough to catch and cartwheel, and you'll be in a side slip, so you'll have drifted off centerline since there's no wind.

With any wind you'd have a similar effect due to turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer and off of trees, etc. It's just easier to visualize with thermal since it acts as a single perturbation and then leaves you alone after you fly out of it.

If you give the rudder a good kick as soon as the roll starts, and then stop it (and maybe kick the other way for a second) you should still be OK.

One of my favorite mooney exercises on long X/Cs was to fly with rudder pressure and elevator trim, and that's all. I could easily make standard rate turns and maintain altitude within a 50 foot tolerance, unless the air was really bumpy.

 

[cwyckham]

If you give the rudder a good kick as soon as the roll starts, and then stop it (and maybe kick the other way for a second) you should still be OK.

Can you explain how this would work in terms of the physics of the airflow over the wing? You pick up a wing by yawing the aircraft so that the air flows faster over one wing than the other, increasing lift on that wing. If I give the rudder a good kick, the wing picks up because I'm yawing. When I center the rudder, I'm pointed in the wrong direction because I've been yawing. If I kick the rudder back the other way to line up again before I get off centerline, the air will flow faster over my other wing now and I'll end up right back in the same bank I was in before I ever kicked my rudder.

I can see no way to lift a wing with the rudder and maintain my heading. I can only get back onto heading very slowly, relying on the aircraft's static stability to keep me relatively level while I apply gentle rudder and skid a gentle turn. During final approach, that would be way too slow a turn and I'd miss the runway by a large margin. I'd be yawing 30 degrees left in a second to pick up the wing, then 30 degrees right in more like 10 seconds (standard rate) to correct my course without dropping the wing again. No way am I anywhere near the centerline anymore, and in the meantime I've had another gust hit me anyways.

One of my favorite mooney exercises on long X/Cs was to fly with rudder pressure and elevator trim, and that's all. I could easily make standard rate turns and maintain altitude within a 50 foot tolerance, unless the air was really bumpy.

Exactly. A gentle turn in a stable aircraft in smooth air is easily executed with rudder only. Also wing is easily picked up in slow flight in smooth air while approximately maintaining direction because the only reason the wing was dropping in the first place was due to yaw. But the air isn't smooth near the ground.

 

[TMetzinger]

All that you say is true, but remember that most of our airplanes have positive stability in roll, so they will tend to return to wings level IF they aren't displaced too much. So it's not so much that you pick up the wing with the rudder, as it is that you kept it from dropping much in the first place, and then you can still straighten out in a short distance. Higher speed makes the rudder more effective, so you don't get as much yaw for the same amount of roll correction.

Nice thing about a long runway is that you can stay high a bit longer until you're well over the runway and not have to worry about differences in the ground as the runway will be fairly uniform and thermals rising off the runway will as well.

Still, your point is worth considering. If the chute offered a soft landing, it would be a lot more attractive.

 

[cwyckham]

You're certainly correct that the key here is the power of the static stability of the aircraft versus the power of gusty wind/thermals to upset the aircraft. I submit that I believe the latter is much more powerful than the former as evidenced by the fact that I have to use my ailerons a lot on a gusty landing.

Some cheap model aircraft have only rudder control, but I believe that they have very large wing dihedral to provide much higher stability coefficients than you get in a real aircraft. Remember that you only want an aircraft to be "somewhat" stable or else the control forces would be too high.

Since the only way that rudder application can right the aircraft is by yawing it, it doesn't matter when or how quickly you apply the rudder, you'll still yaw. If, for example, the wind on the right wing suddenly drops by 5 knots due to turbulence near the ground, you need to immediately accelerate the right wing forward so that it is moving 5 knots faster forward than the left wing in order to prevent a roll to the right.

 

[Teller1900]

If you "pick up the wing" with your rudder, aren't you going to end up heading about 30 degrees to your left by the time the wings are level? If you stay in the bank, you'll turn right by the same amount by the time you touch down, so that doesn't work either. Perhaps you can give enough opposite rudder to maintain heading but not enough to pick up the wing. You'll land with one wing very low, perhaps enough to catch and cartwheel, and you'll be in a side slip, so you'll have drifted off centerline since there's no wind.

Go around? Try it again. Try a different runway. Try a different airport. Even in an emergency, as long as you're not dead-stick and you have at least one working (and not burning) engine, a go around is pretty much always an option. Like Felix said, in the grand scheme of emergencies or flight control failures, this is one of the more mundane. The plane is still perfectly flyable, just sluggish (pretend you're flying a Heavy). My instructor in the Seminole used to make me fly the pattern and full procedure ILS with just elevator trim, power, and rudders. The plane is still perfectly flyable and salvageable, so don't stop flying it! Like Tim said, a bad landing mostly under control is still going to be more comfortable/survivable than a fall under a canopy...especially since you have even less say over what you hit under the chute.

 

[cwyckham]

Go around? Try it again. Try a different runway. Try a different airport. Even in an emergency, as long as you're not dead-stick and you have at least one working (and not burning) engine, a go around is pretty much always an option.

That is, of course, an excellent suggestion. This type of failure wouldn't prevent a safe go-around from a reasonably open area. If I'm on final into a tight spot (between a hanar and a row of trees or something), then it's conceivable that getting bumped by a large gust would have me suddenly facing trees I couldn't climb over once I'd picked up my wing, but in a typical airport, that wouldn't likely happen.

I believe that on a windy day, you'd never get an approach without at least one hard gust to knock you badly the wrong way. You could go around all day. Certainly, some airports are better than others (trees or other obstructions can cause serious turbulence for some wind directions in many of the airports I've operated out of, while other wind directions are fairly smooth). On a fairly calm day, maybe you'd get lucky after a couple shots. You'd at least get better at it.

I would dearly like to try this out now.